Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 April	5 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya, The Finale[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 23 known holdings in worldcat.[1] I'm not seeing any reviews other than the single one listed in the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Worldcat is not reliable at all for India, even extremely well known books show only 1 or 2 results in India. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria for books and appears to be a part of Koenraad Elst spam. Salih (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above Harsh (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect to "Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society". This is Elst's last book on the Ayodhya debate, and for some reason seems less well known than "Ayodhya and after". I think the reason is that it was published many years after the Ayodhya debate. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:39, 11 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!} 10:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitra Arts[edit]

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

Article appears to be a WP:PROMO piece by a WP:SPA and WP:COI. No evidence of encyclopedic notability per WP:CORP. No sources are cited. Article thus also fails WP:V. A Google search turned up only passing references in WP:RS sources. Article was previously speedy deleted for unambiguous advertising (G-11). Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At present, we can see that the article has no sources, maybe my vote is a delete. But I would wait for some more days. Fundarise (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in WP:RS, any other instances I found were WP:SPS. Notability not established. --Drm310 (talk) 19:52, 7 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!} 10:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Martinez[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Normally I'd prefer to wait to see if he gets another top tier fight but this last fight was his first one (at any level) in over a year and he's had only 7 fights since 2008. I have no objections if someone wants to keep this in their userspace. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. No problems with userfying this article.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure). G11, unambiguous advertising, criteria of speedy deletion was applied. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egton Medical Information Systems[edit]

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

This was a contested expired proposed deletion candidate. There's only one, non-independent source, and the article generally comes off spammy. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Content is unsalvageablely spammy. WorldNewsKid (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 - totally promotional piece of fluff Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As per above Harsh (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS refs, and a search turned up no RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:45, 10 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!} 10:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zycko[edit]

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

A nonnotable "business solutions" provider. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Promotional. References not reliable. Harsh (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to nom this. Trivial coverage in the Register, only coverage in Microscope (newspaper) is non-trivial, and that doesn't seem like a mainstream reliable source, but a niche publication. One or two articles in a single niche publication don't seem to merit notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 11 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!} 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Awesome Katy[edit]

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

Still too soon, even from the last AfD. Piloted show that has not yet been picked up by a channel for broadcast syndication. While there are sources that document the pilot (e.g. [2], [3]), there's no indication the show will actually be aired yet, and we should not have an article predicting its future notability. For all we know, it may be dropped. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP:TOOSOON and the general notability guideline are the policies to cite. There was only one episode, and even though there are references. Not every article deserves a Wikipedia entry just because it exists. I'm glad that the editor above me did a good faith search before claiming GNG, but WP:TOOSOON is the deciding policy. Ging287 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually a Disney Channel show, but judging from how glacial Girl Meets World has been (two years since announcement; still in pre-production), this is still too soon. As usual; wait until the network announces it's added to the schedule, not that a pilot is in maybe consideration. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment It looks like the first version of this was removed as a copyvio, but this newer version is making me ill ("dopest Disney show #nextlevel"? Zendaya and five 'unknown' roles? This is a sandbox version, not an actual article!). I also disagree with redirection as it seems unlikely that the title will go to air and it'll probably just Zendaya or something more staid if it gets past the pilot stage. Nate • (chatter) 04:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then consider a redirect to Zendaya. A pilot may still be notable if there is significant third party coverage in reliable sources - this one doesn't. It looks like it is still in development. Too soon for an article now, wait for an announcement. Most of the info in this article is a~~n unattributed~~ copy from http://zendaya.wikia.com/wiki/Super_Awesome_Katy, a fan-site. Most of the info could and should be in the Zendaya article as it is a development project for her. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Zendaya. It's too soon to say that this pilot ought to have an article; we can wait until it gets picked up as a series and announced for the Disney Channel schedule. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any sources that the pilot was produced, the sources I'm seeing stop in January the day before the supposed filming. Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 7 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 as an article created by a banned user, with no substantive contributions from other editors. (See CSD G5.) Note: All but one of the supports for "keep" are based on the subject being notable, but that is irrelevant, since lack of notability is not the reason given for deletion. The other "keep" is based on a mistaken view of policy. Consequently, none of the "keeps" would have had much weight anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks (Private members club)[edit]

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

Article created by a sock puppet LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep . So what? Non-abusive article. AFAIK, only banned users are mercilessly scrubbed off wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable. WorldNewsKid (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable, it's supper club has been reviewed, and so on. The article does seem promotional and should be edited. In this diff i just took out some claims that were not supported by the sources given. There are other corrections to make, like how to spell "ammenities", but that is for editing and perhaps Talk page discussion. The place seems notable, at least the current club in recent decades. I am not sure of its claim of association with the 1700's era club, but again that is also for the Talk page; the current club is notable. --do ncr am 23:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'keep - seems notable to me Bali88 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:db-g5 applies to "a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of his or her ban or block, with no substantial edits by others." It can also apply if the editors who made the otherwise substantive edits agree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is paid public relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.107.99 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Silks[edit]

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

Non-notable, appears to only be WP:PROMO. I notice this was deleted before; I wonder if this is a recreation of the same thing. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014

KEEP Notable Company. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does appear to be covered in reliable sources (e.g. Textile Trends, Volume 49), as far as company articles go spamwise, this one is pretty decent. WorldNewsKid (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Kalyan Silks is one of the largest organised textile chains in South India. It is like Trent (Westside) for Tata Group. The only problem is that it doesn't belong to Tata or Birla or Reliance. But it has a huge fan following in the retail world. Smokingsingh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Although Smokingsingh is permitted to cast a vote, it should be noted that they are also the creator of the article. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article has reliable sources(The Hindu is a notable newspaper in India) and Kalyan Silks is actually a notable company.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject meets Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations. It has significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources as such, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13]. I'm all set to assume that the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE, before nominating this article for deletion. If the present articles includes some promotional contents or wp:peacock terms, it is subjected to discussion on the article's talk page. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm. I concede completely, withdrawing my deletion request in full. Appears to be my mistake. I see it has been covered by more than 3 independent national newspapers, which should be more than needed for the General notability guidelines for articles.
I know nothing about the company. From an outside point of view, it looks promotional, rather than informative, and so didn't understand that it really is notable. I passed over the references much too quickly and thought it was just a spam page, re-created. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have no further concerns about the article as OP; I now believe I was unobservant, and new to discerning between genuine notability and meaningless spam. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 23:48, 11 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!} 10:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Rashidi[edit]

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

A previous version (since moved to User:Hrashi) was prodded, with the rationale "This autobiography does not contain any non-primary sources, the subject's Google scholar profile has such low citation counts (in a high-citation field) that WP:PROF#C1 is clearly not passed, and there is no evidence that the subject passes any other notability criterion." The same reasoning still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny cites in GS does not pass WP:Prof. Too early. Creator is using his user page as a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the subject would pass WP:GNG, and with an h-index of 5 it seems unlikely that he would pass WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For reasons articulated above Kabirat (talk) 08:53, 8 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. Pretty clear delete consensus here, so not much to say about the close itself. I do want to mention that the "The article for the author has been deleted three times" comment seems a little disingenuous. That makes it sound like it's been voted off the island in three separate AfDs, which isn't the case at all. It had a single AfD, and two speedy deletes of recreations. That doesn't really change the result here. Just saying. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation[edit]

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

probably non-notable book -- disguised promotional article for the non-notable author. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated and referenced the article accordingly. The author is very notable and is a senior bureaucrat. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the author has been deleted three times, see Sibichen K Mathew Jonpatterns (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though one may see plenty of references, none suffices the "Significant coverage" part. Many of them are not reliable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is about the book which is indeed notable. The author is also notable but not as notable as the book it self. The article earlier had some material on the author which I have deleted. The book has had significant coverage from the media and reviews from towering academic and judicial personalities. This book is a ""Academic and technical book" and it serves a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores". I agree that most of the references may not fall under "significant coverage" but since this an academic and technical book which has had reviews from great personalities, I think it needs to stay on Wikipedia. The subject of the book is key here as it is one of the world's first study on invasion of a tax agency into private lives and it's sociological and economic effect. The book is also cataloged and mentioned in the Library of Congress Parts of the book are also in consideration to be added to the taxation curriculum in the National Academy of Direct Taxes. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate evidence for notability . This is not a highly specialized book at all, and if notable wold be widely recognized, That the subject is important is not a reason for an article on the book, but a reason to use the book as a reference in an article on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CAN A NOMINATOR VOTE ALSO?. This is indeed a Highly Specialized Book as it goes into the economic sociological impact of taxation, which in my opinion is highly specialized enough. Since this is highly specialized it is not going to be commercially very notable. But this book has got a decent amount of press coverage as well as reviews from Judicial Personalities, Newspapers and International Peer Review Journals. Highly Specialised books which are academic in nature are never very widely notable. The approach of the author in dissecting the compliance issues with an interdisciplinary perspective is not only unique in this area of study but is highly specialised and this can be evident from the published reviews of the book .The book also presents the results of two empirical studies which have never been conducted before. This is the World's first study to analyze the causes and consequences of tax evasion and income tax raids as perceived by the taxpayers themselves.This book is of great policy relevance and talks are on to add chapters of this book to the taxation curriculum in the National Academy of Direct Taxes. The main contention of the nominator was of the non-notability of the author since there was unnecessary material on the author on the page. I have fixed that by deleting the unnecessary material, the author is notable but that is not the topic here since the page is about the book. What the closer of the debate, should judge is the notability of this 'Highly Specialised and Technical Book', which indeed has notability for the reasons stated in my two comments.Uncletomwood (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are incorrect for example this sentence-

Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation has featured in several lists - including The Hindu and the Crossword Book Store Chain lists.

Cites goodreads (a public review forum) and what appears to be a list of people - it doesn't mention the book but says 'Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, Sibichen K Mathew has been deputed as Advisor in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) at the regional office of Bangalore for a period of two years.'. It should cite the link to something saying The Hindu and Crossword had the book as a best sellers. There's a bunch of cites at the end of the paragraph but I'm not going to check everyone.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrees. I'll see to it that the citations are properly listed out in the article. But those citations do exist, if a closer look has been given. Also most of the peacock words and other insignificant references and words have been removed from the article. The book is definitely notable because of it's subject, high technical nature and published reviews and coverage Uncletomwood (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nice attempt, but I agree the refs are very poor. Unnotable journals, websites, most of it seems to stretch the definition of mainstream coverage or even reliable niche coverage too far. Sadly, this does look like an attempt to advertise. If any reliable sources are analyzed here, please ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mainstream references are rare for 'Highly specialized and Technical books'. The journals and websites are definitely notable and do come as reliable coverage. In India, at least these journals and websites provided are reliable. I also have made an attempt to properly cite. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviewing Wikipedia's book notability guidelines, the one that seems most possible for this work is #4: "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Is there any evidence to back up the claim that this book is being used for instruction in India or elsewhere? Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not get an exact link but I have added a citation that says, the author lectured at the NADT, the ISEC and the ISME on his book for the taxation course. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:29, 11 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!} 10:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bauribandhu Mohapatra & Gujarat National Law University Community Service Award[edit]

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

Non-notable award by a single university. One or two of the individuals given the prize are likely to be notable , but not most of them, DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agrees with the nominator but the said award is a community service award recognized by the Government of Gujarat. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no Wikipedia notability guideline that awards as a topic are restricted to those primarily given to wp:notable recipients...and as to whether or not the recipients would be listed in the article, this is a matter of WP:DUE wp:prominence, not WP:N wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no evidence that the award has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Harsh (talk) 16:41, 8 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!} 10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national under–14 football team[edit]

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

U-14 football is not notable and fails WP:GNG, precedent set at this previous 2014 AFC U-14 Championship AfD JMHamo (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal national under-14 football team. Giant Snowman 16:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus above. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A national team of football is a noatable team.User:Lucifero4

Where does it say this? Current consensus is U-14 teams are non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous consensus. Sawol (talk) 13:07, 7 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. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barendrecht train accident[edit]

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

4.5 years later, I don't see how this meets WP:EVENT. Does not appear to have persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article can be expanded and improved by translation of material in the corresponding nl-wiki article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Lack of persistent coverage is probably because info hasn't been incorporated into the article rather than not existing. Presumably the Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid have released a report by now. As I said, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar: - you did read the big notice at WP:AFD before you nominated this article for deletion, didn't you? It clearly states the articles in need of improvement are not candidates for deletion. Your claim of failing WP:PERSISTENCE is hereby challenged. Two minutes searching of t'internet reveals that not only were two freight trains involved, but so was a passenger train!. Suggest you now withdraw this nomination. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - article requiring improvement was not my claim for deletion. Having a passenger train involved does not automatically add to notability. And demanding someone to withdraw a nomination doesn't work. Regards. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your reason for nominating the article was that there was a lack of persistent coverage. Both myself and Oakshade have shown that such coverage exists, even if not present in the article. I did not demand that you withdraw the nomination, I merely suggested that you do so. You are quite free to let the debate run its natural course but you appear to be in the minority here. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is notable and there is a report available now. The length of the article is not, by itself, a reason to delete it. CRwikiCA talk 22:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The fact that the three sources are all in Dutch, and that it's a stub with few references, does not disqualify it from being notable. Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how this article meets WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any train collision that causes several injuries or deaths and results in significant media coverage is considered to meet WP:N(E). There's at least five references in the Dutch article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't report every fatality and crash in Wikipedia, it needs to meet WP:EVENT and have WP:PERSISTENT coverage. The Dutch article has 5 sources all from September 2009, this does not show WP:PERSISTENT is met. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent coverage is not needed per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, your WP:PERSISTENT does not exist as you claim, it merely links to archived Village Pump discussion pages. The accident does meet the event notability guidelines and also is covered in English language sources, e.g. in The Telegraph. For all these reason I remain with my Keep statement. CRwikiCA talk 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I meant WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides easily passing WP:GNG, even if if the WP:PERSISTENCE concept were an actual rule (it's not), two years later in 2011, the legacy of this crash was the primary example of what needs to be done to improve Dutch railways safety. [14] --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no WP:BEFORE in this AfD nomination. In particular, I see no mention of the article on the Dutch Wikipedia in the AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when I nominated this article, the Dutch article had 5 sources all from 2009. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dutch Wikipedia article has sources that pass WP:GNG, and also leads to [15] , which shows that the topic attracted sufficient attention that new details were reported a year later. As Oakshade has reported, there is a 2011 report of the Safety Board available. Some of the analysis here is that the train was going one kph slower than a level that the existing automatic train controls were set to detect, and relates the technical issues of this aging safety system to a broader European standard. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 7 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. Based on the arguments presented, there is a clear consensus to KEEP at this time D P 19:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk[edit]

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

This article was deleted several years ago. A request was made to review the deletion, citing additional sources which have come to light since the AfD. AfD is a better forum to evaluate the questions raised at the DRV, so I've restored the article and am listing it here. This is an administrative listing; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This should never have been deleted in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sources provided in the DRV seem enough in-and-of themselves. There is a serous problem with an exact definition, but the way to deal with that is for the article to address it rather than to delete the article. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article's AfD history is extensive. The first one in 2005 had deletes citing a lacking in WP:GNG and some forms of WP:OR which during the time, may be true. However the genre and the article has come a long way since. Today I have found multiple independent reliable sources referencing Dieselpunk as a distinct genre separate from other cyberpunk derivatives and sets a clear definition as to what it means. Here are some sources:

News publications:

The Daily Dot
New York Times
Gatehouse Gazette
The Register-Guard

Book publications:

Dieselpunk ePulp Showcase
Dieselpunk: Retro Futures of the All-American Art Deco Years
Academic Paper
Virtual Words: Language on the Edge of Science and Technology
The Warlord of the Air: A Scientific Romance

Game publications (I was unable to access some sources due to corporate blocking):

Altered Gamer
Inside Mac games
Misguided Games (RS?)

If another editor could help me add those sources and removed some cruft that would be great! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment' Just added two of the sources and removed tons of possible OR. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Dot reference looks reliable, in depth and secondary. Szzuk (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-establish redirect to Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk. I'm not sure why we're having this conversation. This is almost the exact material that was deleted (and subsequently upheld at deletion review) a few years back, and all of its problems with original research, synthesis, and a lack of reliable sources remain. Of the links mentioned above by User:Valoem, there is one reliable source, the Daily Dot article. All of the others are passing mentions or self-published sources. An article that makes as many claims as this one does cannot be supported by a single source. - Eureka Lott 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an argument for cleanup. So all of the references need deleting (apart from The Daily Dot) and most of the OR. I'd suggest someone hack away. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article is built atop a foundation of unreliable sources and is fundamentally flawed. I think the best thing to do is blow it up and start over. - Eureka Lott 20:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it should be blown up too. I just don't think it needs deleting, and don't want to blow it up myself. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article history was restored after the 2010 deletion review discussion to assist in the creation of a new article that could avoid the flaws of its previous incarnations. Unfortunately, it's had the opposite effect, resulting in several attempts to resurrect this untenable version. I don't see a good option other than deleting it and starting over. - Eureka Lott 21:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a clean up would need to be done very methodically. Some references appear to have been overlooked in prior AfDs. For example, the reference to io9 may be acceptable along with Wired magazine (dead link). Altered Gamer also suggests that video games have defined a difference between dieselpunk and other genres. I went ahead and removed the most blatant ORs, the other appear to be questionable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Much of the information found in the article has direct references in The Daily Dot, I just went ahead and added a few. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, there is no reason to delete non-RS refs. We cannot rely on non-RS, but nor do we have to remove them simply on that ground. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin concerned has now been canvassed to join back in and no doubt to threaten his usual blocks for any mutinies on board, I would draw the attention of those interested to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#Advice, please? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think the dieselpunk has reached the point of a stand alone article. With forums, streaming audio channels, and websites dedicated to the genre by name. ~ Brother William (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an admin closure for this AfD to prevent any controversies going forward. Article is on its 4th AfD it appears consensus has changed, but due to its extensive history admin closure is proper in this case. Thanks! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:22, 11 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!} 10:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manaqib-al-Jalila[edit]

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

Hopeless puff piece and possible hoax. Title of book does not appear anywhere in any of the cited sources, and the only references I can find to it online are mirrors of this page. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some parts of this article are literally painful to read. G S Palmer (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax I can say for a fact that the comment that it was the best book of fiqh were it not for the scathing remarks isn't about this book - it's about Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, who died literally 900 years ago and long before the supposed author of the supposed book in this supposed article. This is a load of BS and possibly some kind of a joke. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:50, 6 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!} 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zachari Fagan[edit]

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

Originally PRODded as failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, PROD was contested by IP with no reason given -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:42, 4 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) 13:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Stalwart111 13:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough per WP:NFOOTY . Coderzombie (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep (non-admin closure). Citation Needed | Talk 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

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

last one ended in a no consensus, and i beleive this article doesn't meet the requirements to be an article per WP:NOTABLE Guttersville (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep we just had this last discussion end three days ago, even though I do support it's deletion under fair means. I'm taking down the AfD notice as a result. Citation Needed | Talk 12:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as this next AfD is way too soon. Northern Antarctica (₵) 14:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep too soon. BerkeleyLaw1979 15:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized that we could possibly have a fifth damn debate over this coin now, if we count this AfD. If that one ends in a no consensus, my head is going to spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citation Needed (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Procedural Keep there is no reason to debate this issue again so soon. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. Too soon. Finally, we can agree about a Primecoin AfD! ––Agyle (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This proposal is too close to the 3rd nomination, but Primecoin also has many secondary and tertiary sources. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If and when Primecoin becomes a mostly irrelevant altcoin, THEN an additional AfD nomination will be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:38B3:1409:5CF1:75A4:1D2A:AB33 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK1: Nominator does not advocate deletion. Requests for merging are discussed on the talk page, not at AfD: see WP:MERGE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stobart Air[edit]

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

The new article for Stobart Air should be merged with existing Aer Arann page which will be renamed, there is no point have 3 articles dedicated to Stobart Air. Kavs8 (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per staus quo as a request to merge is a not the same as a deletion request. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long established convention that airline sare one-per-incarnation - British Airways is separate from British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation; Deutsche Luft Hansa is separate from Lufthansa. There are many more examples out there. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 4 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effie Schneider[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and no significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I believe he may be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia - I've improved the article now, please take a look. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He still fails WP:NBOX and brief fighter rundowns before a fight card do not show notability. The article you added is more like a press release/local coverage when it concludes "Monthly boxing returns to Ventura County March 26 at The Derby Club at Seaside Park, formerly Ventura Fairgrounds" and is in the Ventura County sports section of the paper. Routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 22:23, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern dictators in Latin America[edit]

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

Violates WP:POV. List of modern dictators and List of dictators have been deleted for multiple times (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern dictators), and although this list has its reference, it relies mostly one single source. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV for "dictator" criterion. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a POV exercise, sourced out to POV books. Not quite as offensive to me as List of dictatorships in that the sourcing is better, but I think the principle is the same — we are dealing with multiple historical realities here, and peas are being included with carrots, pears, avocados, tree bark, chicken dumplings, and screwdrivers in a common list as if they are all one and the same. Every historical situation is different and these are not comparable figures in terms of actual power ("ability to make a decision and cause others to comply"), which is a complex dynamic involving multiple actors in every nation-state, even the ones that seem like they are being ruled by the fiat of a single individual. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on previous discussion on deleting the previous version of List of modern dictators, the current list has directly addressed the following issues raised by other editors on the nature of listing dictators in Wikipedia.

Unreferenced (raised by User:Bonkers The Clown who submitted the previous Afd) and thus violation of WP:NOR:
- All items are now supported by at least one reliable source on the subject area of History (a specialized encyclopedia edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles).
- Additional citations are provided (see below)
- No personal opinion or judgement by Wikipedia editors, thus no violation of WP:NOR
Potentially poorly-referenced (legitimately raised by User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington potentially defamatory if citing opinion editorials)
- The entry only cites literature from history and political science.
- The main encyclopedia reference satisfies the requirement of reliable sources on the subject area of History ("A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia.").
- Some of the items can be additionally backed up by the Democracy-Dictatorship datasets, a dataset from political science literature whose methods, outcome, and its reliability and validity has been reviewed by a substantial amount of political science literature. (Note the time coverage of DD dataset is shorter)
- Some other political science and history books are used for certain items. Any one is welcome to add reliable sources.
Potential violation of WP:BLP
- All items are now supported by reliable sources from history and political science literature, and thus not a violation of WP:BLP
- I agree with User:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington that opinion editorials are potentially defamatory and thus violation of WP:BLP. The current list of references contains no such material.
- I strongly suggest a policy of "no opinion editorials" for this particular list article, or similar articles of this nature.
Lack of definition of dictatorship or impossible to do so
- A paragraph is written to describe the challenge to do so. (Note that the challenge does not prevent political scientists and historians to do so. We should definitely prevent Wikipedia editors to do so per WP:NOR. However it does not suggest we can or should prevent other editors to summarize what has been published and reviewed by relevant expert communities. )
- A paragraph has quoted the criteria used by the reliable source for inclusion, thereby handling neutrality disputes per WP:SUBSTANTIATE

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanteng (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: User:hanteng has been canvassing on multiple user talk pages of those people who said "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators asking them to vote "keep" here: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notify some of the discussants because they are either indefinitely blocked [22][23] or inactive[24][25] when I first quickly sent out the messages. I guess good will from Jsjsjs1111 is lacking towards me. I also sent a couple of the same messages to those that I have missed . --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 08:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DD index and other dictatorship research: garbage or not?: The DD index may be garbage in User:Carrite 's eyes, but not only it is published [26] in a peer-review journal and cited more than 500 times since its publication in 2010 [27]. (More see User_talk:Hanteng#GIGO.2C_exactly and User_talk:Carrite#but GIGO)--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 09:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was lobbied to participate as a result of participating in a previous AFD. The problem is of how one defines what is a dictatorship. Another problem is that some of the countries concerned maintain a facade of democracy, so that there is a grey area, where it is a POV issue whether it is a dictatorship or not. The present article is a list of counties quoting an index that is not explained in that article, from one (probably academic) source. "Modern" is a weazel word. How far back does it go? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -too POV. Articles like the DD index, Freedom in the World, etc. adequately convey information on current dictatorships, and a list that involves extant regimes seems potentially defamatory. Perhaps a list covering only "historical dictatorships" might make sense. Orser67 (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per LibStar and Orser67.--Snorri (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Orser67. ----Omnipaedista (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so as Js.Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 11:48, 9 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 Wanted: Dead or Alive (Kool G Rap & DJ Polo album). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rikers Island (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, no coverage by reliable sources. Darx9url (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wanted: Dead or Alive (Kool G Rap & DJ Polo album). --Michig (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wanted: Dead or Alive (Kool G Rap & DJ Polo album), fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 22:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. The sourced "Background" section can be added to the album article; there does not appear to be sufficient coverage for a standalone article, however. Gongshow talk 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wanted: Dead or Alive (Kool G Rap & DJ Polo album). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 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. Snowball → Call me Hahc21 16:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles[edit]

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

Contested speedy due to substantive differences. Content may be different but notability issues remain per all the previous nominations. Coverage does not prove notability and has done nothing notable aside from maybe the SHIMMER title and notability is not inherited from that title. Number 1 in PWI yearly list has already been ruled in previous AfD's as not enough for notability, likely for the same reason. No evidence of substantive overseas work outside of SHIMMER (the odd match at other promotions are not enough). 124.180.170.151 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 06:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be so hasty to press the delete button again. Have you even counted the number of secondary sources now? Plus, the article is currently being expanded. I want to see your evidence in previous AfDs that being ranked #1 by PWI is not notable / holding the SHIMMER title (for over 500 days and the second longest reign) is not notable.
Also, the first three deletions came in 2010 before Eagles was even three months into her reign as SHIMMER champion. Fourth deletion was probably because the article wasn't well sourced. starship.paint "YES !" 09:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - remember, she's female, and female wrestlers are way below male ones in the pecking order. That said, she qualifies for "major success in minor promotions". SHIMMER has been the top women's wrestling group since its inception a few years ago (from a 2013 article). Holding the top SHIMMER championship for 539 days, over a year and the second longest SHIMMER reign ever definitely qualifies for notability. Meanwhile, she was ranked the #1 female wrestler in the world by Pro Wrestling Illustrated, most likely the top magazine for pro wrestling that has been writing since 1979. The other reliable sources (SLAM! / PWTorch / Observer) have all referred to PWI. Being #1 is a serious accomplishment, as PWI ranks "in-universe", taking into account championships / wins / losses, meaning she was the most dominant female wrestler in the world in 2011, no matter what promotion. Success in America and Australia too. starship.paint "YES !" 09:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While notability is not inherited, I would like to make these facts known. Every other SHIMMER Champion has her own article. Every other PWI #1 has her own article. In fact, apparently every other person up to at least #10 has her own article. starship.paint "YES !" 10:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article, particularly for her work in Shimmer and in other promotions in 2007-2011. Surely this is enough to prevent deletion. starship.paint "YES !" 08:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the champion for well over a year in the top American women's promotion and ranked #1 by PWI makes her notable. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As one who has been expanding the article, I had no trouble finding online reports of her matches and reviews of DVDs in which she participated. I am more used to sourcing music articles, and if this much was written about a musician who went on tour, performed hundreds of times in several countries and played on albums which were reviewed multiple times, or an actress who was a main character in a television series that went on for several seasons, there would be no question of notability. Also, the #1 PWI listing appears to have been mentioned widely on other independent wrestling reports, which shows that the writers on those sites thought that it was important. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prolific title reign and a major PWI award are significant accomplishments and establish notability.LM2000 (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that familiar with her, but the name pops up a lot in histories of other notable women. It's notable collaboration, not just association. That, and the better reasons above, sway me. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely per arguments stated above by Starship Paint. And I dipped back into the history to see how the various other versions of the article looked when they got deleted. The article as it stands now is about the most complete and extensive version that's been created to date. Tabercil (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions, the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions and the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. starship.paint "YES !" 04:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as {{db-g4}} by User:RHaworth. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Khan (Co editor)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Khursheed Khan Pictures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeh Friendship and Khursheed Khan (protected against recreation). Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; CSD G4; recreation of multideleted and salted text Khursheed Khan Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 4 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 Morrissey discography. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Tracks (Morrissey album)[edit]

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

I'm a big Mozhead. But, I can't see how this rare album passes notability guidelines. I can't find decent coverage about it, even in my Morrissey fangirl books here at home. Only mere mentions and fansites. But, perhaps someone else can prove wrong and improve the article with reliable secondary sources! SarahStierch (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Morrissey_discography. I know nothing about the subject, but I think this sort of ultra-fragmented "article" is a big problem on WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Morrissey discography, which presently does not cover or mention Rare Tracks. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 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 03:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Emmons Force[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTINHERITED. The 2 sources provided are actually more about her notable husband. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New York Times social article is about her. She appears to have been a real celebrity in her day. Once notable, a person is always notable, even if nobody's heard of her today. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

one NY times article doesn't mean automatic notability. there is no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there were once four citations as shown here, but the links aren't giving much now. Unless those articles went in depth about her, she fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. The New York Times article currently provided that Bearian speaks of does not give in-depth coverage of her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - the creator of this article could actually have done it rather better. Judging by the article on the subject's husband, the mention of her being a missionary seems to be a vestige of the article creator confusing the subject with her mother-in-law. But the article creator completely missed almost all the real evidence of her being notable by the standards of a hundred years ago. To give just a few examples, Miss Katherine Force gets engaged: it's news. She goes to the opera: her presence in the audience seems at least as important as the actual performance. She plays tennis: the match gets reported in "American lawn tennis: official organ of United States National Lawn Tennis Association". And, after World War I, she starts trading (apparently successfully) in real estate: this gets her a feature article in the Milwaukee Journal. But I will leave others to decide whether that makes her notable by the standards of Wikipedia today. PWilkinson (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Milwaukee Journal seems to give some significant coverage and talks about her going into real estate business, but per WP:GNG we should have more than one in-depth source on Katherine if the article is to be kept. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Anyone that closely related to the Astor family at that time was noticed by the newspapers. The Charlotte News had her and her sister on its Sunday front page. There was something about her engagement to a "poor but honest clerk" before her marriage. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for Clarityfiend: how much coverage does she get in this paper? I can't access it due to subscription issues. If it is in-depth coverage, then I vote keep. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have a subscription either. You can see in the OCR text it's about a paragraph. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did manage to come across some papers covering her during marriage and included them in the article, so now I officially vote Keep. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:37, 9 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. The only explicit rationale for deletion is the lack of non-primary sources, and since non-primary sources were provided in Samwalton's comment I cannot reasonably conclude there is consensus for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Paladin[edit]

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

Article relies purely on primary sources. No third party sources indicating why this person passes the WP:NOTABLE test. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Article has no secondary sources. Doduf (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found a number of interviews and mentions. Can't find any detailed coverage specifically of the subject, but the following lead me to be undecided: Road to the IGF interview, interview, interview, mentions, mentions. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:20, 4 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 02:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Collins-Rector[edit]

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

as per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. almost all the coverage about him is as a sex offender. he is supposedly notable for founding Digital Entertainment Network, but I see that company as dubiously notable and have that nominated that too. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - sources checks out for the information mentioned in the article. and as a founder of DEN I can see some small notability. But more input is needed perhaps. A talk page discussion needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 9 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 02:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Cataldi[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Claims of "awards from the annual Salon organised by Escola Nacional de Belas Artes" cannot be verified, and inclusion in Louzadas Indice consolidado artes plasticas brasil 94 [Dictionary of Arts] does not indicate significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was not able to find online reliable sources, but my experience with Brazilian Art is that generally online sources are not available. We have a book as a source in the article, which (the first one) seems to be a RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:05, 4 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Entertainment Network[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. a minor now defunct company. gets a few minor hits, and I note references 9-16 are small mentions. part of the article is a content fork talking about the criminality of its founder. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll do some digging for references. DEN had a major presence in the digital entertainment space during the early dot com days. The article (if the sources can be found) wouldn't be flattering; they staffed up with prominent executives, built very expensive offices, offered ridiculous perks, and burned through millions of dollars without generating any revenue in a short period of time. And that's on top of the controversy previously mentioned. It's an interesting company, historically, in terms of their (failed) role in the development of original online content and the dot com bust. JSFarman (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now mostly remembered as a dot-com era flop, but in its day it was one of the main attempts to start a TV-style video network online, and it got considerable press at the time for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk)

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 02:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halabja Governorate[edit]

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

So far only a proposal by the Kurdish Regional Government that has been approved by the Central Government. There are currently 3 other proposed provinces awaiting approval.[28] Until final reorganisation of provinces takes place on the ground, these to-be-declared provinces should be deleted.--Kathovo talk 15:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The formal procedure is irrelevant to to the existence of this article. This article was written before the order was passed / signed.
Your personal interpretation of the law is irrelevant(no original research) . We have a source stating that Halabja is now a governate. Disputing this is fine but you're going to need a reliable source that says so.
If you think your argument is relevant I suggest you add it to the article(with a reliable source). Simply deleting the article prevents everyone from contributing to it.

~ Zirguezi 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we only have news reports stating that the KRG agreed to established a new governorate. As far as I could see there has been no law to change the demarcation of governorates which has been in place since 1969.[29] By the way even the official KRG website still states that the region is composed of 3 governorates.--Kathovo talk 14:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's true you should add it to the article. I agree with you that it seems that the boundaries of the governorate haven't been set yet. But again, deleting this article will not solve anything and prevent it from becoming any better in the future. ~ Zirguezi 09:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:03, 4 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. Sandstein 07:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradox of Excellence[edit]

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

Does not meet notability per WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - major publisher. Book by a Harvard professor. Reviewed in popular and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters piece isn't a reivew; its an adaptation of a tip republished as click fodder. The Economist article refers to a paper, not the book. It's an ancillary reference, ot about the book itself, and certainly isn't a review. Goodreads is self-published and not a reliable source. These aren't the non-trivial sources that WP:NBOOK demands. -- Mikeblas (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just posting to say "ditto". Goodreads is pretty much a social media site where people can review, akin to Facebook. None of the reviews can be used to show notability because anyone can sign up and review something without any editorial oversight. As far as the other links go, Reuters, Economist, and Harvard don't seem to actually be talking about this specific book. It looks like, as far as I can tell, these articles are about the people who originated the term "Paradox of Excellence". Notability is not inherited by the authors of this specific book writing about something possibly notable. (WP:NOTINHERITED) You, I, or even Jimbo himself could write a book about Albert Einstein's bunny slippers, but us writing about a notable subject does not make the book automatically pass notability guidelines. It just means that we wrote a book about something notable, which might make it more likely that it'd get coverage. We can't use any of these links to show notability. We need sources about the specific book written by David Mosby and Michael Weissman, not about the concept that two Harvard professionals came up with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-make the entry to be about the concept itself rather than this book. The thing here to remember is that while this book does cover the concept, the authors for this specific book did not come up with it. I can find sources for the concept, but not this particular book. I found two articles, but they're not enough to show notability for this specific book on the concept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least as far as I can tell, neither of the authors came up with this term. I can find some references for the term, but they don't explicitly state who came up with the idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... maybe not for the term. I can see where it's used, but it's kind of used so generally that it's hard to really nail down reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that that some of the above sources don't actually refer to the book. Via highbeam, this source: [30] does, but it's a one-sentence reference, which does not to my mind rise to signficant coverage. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:50, 12 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 Empire of Trebizond. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despotate of Sinope[edit]

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

There never was a state called "Despotate of Sinope". David and Alexios Komnenos were co-rulers of the same state, i.e. what later became known as the "Empire of Trebizond", simply based in different areas. Both claimed the imperial title of Constantinople, and neither ever bore the title of "Despot". The very name of this article is nowhere to be found in the relevant bibliography, and is a neologism apparently created by OR in the 2005 Catalan WP article this derives from. I initially redirected this to David Komnenos, but SimonTrew (talk · contribs) re-created it. Although well-intentioned, I am sorry to say that this was not helpful. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn;t just recreate it, I did my bloody homework and translated it. But according to [here] there was. Now, the facts might be incorrect, but the thing to discuss is is it notable? I did a rough translation from the Catalan to enable others to judge, please don't fault me for that. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a reference to the Despotate of Sinope here]. And Diogenes of Sinope had something to say about it. Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't fault you for re-creating it, it just seems a pity to go through all that work for nothing. Again, there was no "Despotate of Sinope". The site you have linked says nothing about such a state, it mentions Sinope merely as a city within the Empire of Trebizond, which is accurate. A Despotate is a completely different thing, I suggest you read the relevant article (Despot), and is not applicable here for the reasons I mentioned above. You can easily check the term in Google Books, Google Scholar or even the plain Google, it simply does not exist. Constantine ✍ 13:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight... You do understand that Diogenes of Sinope lived one and a half millennia before the period we are talking about? Because if you do not understand this, then please stop editing in Wikipedia right now. Constantine ✍ 13:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a Despot is, I have a wife]. Yeah, it is a tricky one isn't it. I am glad you realise I edit in good faith. Maybe it should go then. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand — your argument is not whether there is a place called Sinope but whether there is a despotate or was ever one there? Books seem to vary on the matter but I would go along with you. But still, is it a likely search term? If it is not a likely search term it should be deleted, but then should we merge a bit of content into Sinop, Turkey or what? (Sinope is a DAB for which that is the first entry). Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a likely search term, quite simply because it is freely invented. It is like asking whether "Federal Republic of Bulgaria" or "Kingdom of Moscow", are likely search terms. As for merging content into Sinop, Turkey, there isn't anything that could be merged as the article doesn't really say anything pertinent about the history of the town during this period. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do what is best. I only wanted it to come to AfD to clarify these matters that are being discussed. I think I will abstain, as I do not yet know the immediate subject area, or its sources, well enough to make a judgement. Thank you. —PC-XT+ 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. The question is if someone else didn't know and was trying to look up an encyclopaedia to find out would they find what they were looking for? They wouldn't find it at Sinope since that is a DAB, but maybe they would I really am not sure but I think it is better for the article to stay. 22:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment :I admit I am not familiar this subject. But according to my sources Alexios Komnenos supported Izzeddin Kaykaus when the later laid a siege on Sinope. This event shows that Sinope was independent of Trebizond . (Anyway in 13th century Anatolia nobody was able to form a truly centralized government, up to Mongol domination) Thus I think the article can be kept. If desired the title of the article may be changed. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be clear, I did a rough translation of this so that others had a chance to judge. My Catalan is not brilliant but I just threw in a rough translation and another editor cleared it up a bit. I haven't marked the tags on the talk page for {{translated page}} etc since it went to AfD so quickly I couldn't see the point but will do that if it stays. I just wanted to do a rough translation so that other editors could judge and if it stays I will tidy it up a bit. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nedim. I'd like to see your sources, because if the conflict you are referring to is the Siege of Sinope, at that time the town most certainly was not separate of Trebizond, and Alexios did not support Kaykaus. An article on a "Despotate of Sinope" presupposes two things: a) that Sinope was separate or at least autonomous within Trebizond, and b) that it was led by someone with the title of Despot. The second is patently false, and the first is way too bold a statement to make given the nature of our sources for the period, and the rather undefined hierarchical relation between the two brothers David and Alexios. Anyhow, it should be clear that the original creator of this article in the Catalan WP misinterpreted his sources (if he had any) and created ex nihilo a subject that did not exist. In light of this, I really fail to see the purpose of debating any solution other than deletion, especially given the underdeveloped nature of the article in question. Constantine ✍ 13:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Empire of Trebizond or perhaps Siege of Sinope. Whatever this was it was very shortlived. As I read it Alexios and David Komnenos seized Trebizon shortly after 1204. Sinope was captured by the Turks in 1214. While under seige, inevitably local offeres would be in control of the town, but that does not mean that it was in rebellion; merely that the emperor was not strong enough to relieve it. There may be a little that could be merged to Sinop, Turkey#History. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the record, the Spanish equivalent article has been deleted, and the original Catalan article is going the same way. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 04:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read widely in the secondary literature on the Empire of Trebizond for the last 6 months, I have not found any reference to a "Despotate of Sinope". One could say that David Komnenos did rule a territory extending over Paphlagonia between the core of the Empire of Trebizond & the border of the Nicaean Empire, & that he was arguably independent of his brother, but AFAIK no one has given his domain a distinct name. All of the experts refer to it as a part of the Empire of Trebizond. As for the content, it's either outdated (David Komnenos is now known to have died as a monk on Mount Athos 1212, 2 years before the Seljuks captured Sinope) or incorrect (for example: Tamar of Georgia did not found this state specifically, & Enric d'Hainaut was not David's brother). Sorry to be so brusque, but despite the good faith of its creator this article simply isn't worth keeping. -- llywrch (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per llywrch. At RfD where I tend to hang out (and where this was originally listed before swiftly coming here), it is not a question of being "right" but whether it is a likely search term. However, for an article, if the facts are incorrect to this extreme, it should go: we are not in the business of being misleading. Again I repeat, I only roughly translated it to give other editors a chance to judge: Constantine's comments above, and llywrch's here, convince me that this article is harmful to EN:WP. We could redirect it to Empire of Trebizond, if you think that wise. As I say, redirects do not have to be correct in the way that articles must be, the criterion is basically is someone likely to search for it, but is it a likely search term? Si Trew (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best might be to list Siege of Sinope at the DAB at Sinope, and cut this article entirely. Whether Empire of Trebizond should be listed there I don't know, since patently at least two other editors know far more about this part of the world than I do and I would leave them t judge. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 11 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 SM Supermalls. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Lipa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. shopping malls are not inherently notable. only coverage I found is confirming it exists or certain stores are located within it. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added one basic ref, though it is really about the firm that owns the mall. I am not finding evidence that this mall is notable in its own right. AllyD (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list including all the other SM mall articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Center Muntinlupa. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SM Supermalls per VMSMosaic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SM Supermalls. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 12 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suburb2suburb[edit]

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

This article appears to be WP:NOTADVERTISING. The reference cited is not notable and a google search doesn't show any significant information. versace1608 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! This is simply my WikiAfrica contribution citing something I have seen in my country! I believe deletion will not mean it is false, but maybe the description wasn't fitting! Anyway, I have added a reference from www.scoop.it, hope it shades light on the agency as we look for the final decision. Thanks a lot again, keep it upAikolugbara (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:59, 4 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White's Boots[edit]

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

Nonnotable business advert. - Altenmann >t 07:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - A historic, long-standing company with a good reputation for what they do. There's an article about the company here, only viewable in snippet form, but what I can see shows it's quite an extensive history-of article about them. Several mentions of them being the footwear of choice for workmen, such as this book about 1949 firefighters and loggers. There are a few Google Books hits for the founder Otto White, mainly in 19th and early 20th century books. There's a nice mention in a memoir here which, although not much use as a source, does demonstrate that the company was a first port of call for what they do. I find it hard to believe that a company with such longevity and reputation would fail GNG. Mabalu (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as it seems easy to find detailed coverage - see The Southern Lumberman, for example. Andrew (talk) 20:44, 4 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Antares[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST or the general notability guideline. C 679 11:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable references. Clearly not notable. Goblin Face (talk) 08:58, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Malquerida (telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. → Call me Hahc21 03:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This series is now in production (so not subject to WP:CRYSTAL and (in addition to the sources already provided) it has mountains of press in Spanish-language media. (A Google search for <"La Malquerida" Televisa> generates pages and pages of news stories; here's a brand new article in People en espanol [31].) --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that there is no evidence yet that the soap will air. This has happened before with some Televisa telenovelas. In which their recordings start and never go to air. For example this Madre Sustituta.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even a trailer or promotional. They are just pure speculation for example see its release date. He says it will be released in June and other references say that its release will be in May.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I totally agree with Jorge.--GeorgeMilan / talk 17:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Corazón Es Tuyo[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Here's the same, we continue with the speculation. Since the telenovela has release date yet or have started their recordings. And especially since they have a lot of confirmed cast. The title of the soap has been change as many times.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yara (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has only one reference, and is very empty.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gutierritos (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has only one reference, and is very empty.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yo No Creo En Los Hombres (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has only one reference, and is very empty.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:49, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Manantial (2014 telenovela)[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has only one reference, and is very empty.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasta el Fin del Mundo[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They have not yet begun their recordings and as the article says that its premiere will be this summer?. It seems very unnecessary since before the telenovela called 'Blood of warriors'. There is no assurance that its actual name is the real or are just speculation.--Jorge Horan (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Jorge. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 6 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfano Dardari[edit]

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

Is this Italian painter notable? Currently there is no references to verify. Lets see what others think. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in multiple searches to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. A {{Trout}} for the nominator for claiming that "an Olympian is notable" is "wikilawyering". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Norby[edit]

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

Notability only established in the most Wikilawyering sense in that the subject competed in the Olympics. Article contains too little content to be of any value. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a. That's not wikilawyering--that's our guidelines. b. what matters not so much is what the article has: what counts is the subject in general. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympians are in general considered notable enough to have an article. As the good doctor has stated, (article) size doesn't matter. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE] - "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability of those who appear in the Olympic Games. If the nominator wishes to modify that, this isn't the way to do it. As for "Article contains too little content to be of any value", perhaps the nominator is not aware of the concept of a "stub"? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability as an Olympian. Northern Antarctica (₵) 14:35, 4 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. The vast majority of the keep !votes here are SPAs. Of those that aren't, they're heavily outweighed by the delete arguments that make a clearly convincing case that WP:GNG is not met. Following deletion I will be recreating as a redirect to Game Grumps as a plausible search term, and full-protecting due to the repeated recreations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JonTron[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

A first AfD resulted in consensus to delete in 2013. A second AfD was closed last month as a speedy close under WP:CSD#G4; however, since the material was substantially different, I accept the fact the latest speedy deletion is not uncontroversial and am happy to restore the article and start another community discussion, which will be allowed to run its full course. This was prompted by a request from Jon himself.

This is a procedural nomination only and I am neutral on the matter of deletion or keeping. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this individual is a co-founder of a popular website, in addition to his success on YouTube, means that this article is surely notable enough to Keep. Petitjaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitjaque (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Petitjaque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~I might be biased because I like him, but Keep. I don't know what the previous sources were, but the current sources are, in my opinion, sufficient. Weigh my opinion as you wish.~~ I've changed my position to Neutral per Sergecross73. Bluefist ^talk 02:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources right now, are Youtube videos, Reddit articles, and Twitter posts. None of these are considered third party, reliable sources that would establish notability. The few articles that actually are useable, like this Kotaku source, hardly say anything about him at all. Its merely a passing mention of "Hey, have you heard of him?" and they linked a video. This is not the sort of coverage that establishes notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I've withdrawn my opinion. I double checked the sources and they are indeed dubious in quality. I swear I took a closer look yesterday and they looked just barely acceptable. I still believe he's notable, but there exists no WP:SOURCES I can find to confirm. Bluefist ^talk 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he helped create a video game, keep. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG. Using that logic, all of the hundreds of staff who help make your Halo and Grand Theft Auto games would all deserve their own article. They don't. They wouldn't meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, there's more to him helping make a video game in this case. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 22:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to share any of that, backed by reliable third party sources that discuss JonTron specifically and in-depth? -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As discussed below, he doesn't meet the GNG, which is the relevant criteria here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. I think the sources are sufficient and I believe Jon himself is suitably notable. 2601:9:1B80:837:245F:5D95:6380:AADA (Butts) 02:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 2601:9:1B80:837:245F:5D95:6380:AADA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I also say Keep. Just as some random guy, but there are people on youtube with much smaller fanbases and less views who have wikipedia pages, and the page itself is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.69.250 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2014‎— 24.228.69.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not a valid argument. That doesn't defend Jon Tron's article, it just rationalizes deleting the other articles that are even worse off. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in charge of http://gamegrumps.wikia.com/ Keep. If that helps. PressFartToContinue^talk 02:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— PressFartToContinue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it wouldn't. No one's status makes a difference in these discussions. It doesn't matter who you are, it just matters on whether or not you can make a Wikipedia policy-based argument for keeping or deleting. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page for sure. Jon is notable enough and the sources all check out. There's no real reason to get rid of it, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.90.250 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 72.160.90.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the article may be well written and have verifiable sources, if the subject isn't notable, then there is indeed a reason to get rid of it. -Iago Qnsi 04:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Jafari has made a name for himself in the gaming community as a reviewer, satirist, and designer for video games, and his popularity and influence is highly notable. Jafari deserves his Wikipedia entry. X249J (Talk, 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— X249J (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I say Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheddarface (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Cheddarface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. The page itself contains sufficient citations, and more trustworthy sources are available should others disagree. Moreover, Jon Jafari's Internet work - which includes creating an incredibly popular review show, co-founding popular video website NormalBoots.com, and co-creating Let's Play franchise Game Grumps that, according to Social Blade, is currently the 93rd most influential YouTube channel - has influenced web media to the point of justifying a Wikipedia page. Finally, I posit that the only reason Jon's page is up for deletion is because he creates web content. If he achieved his level of success producing content in traditional media, nobody would be questioning his status on Wikipedia. LeiAdeline— LeiAdeline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

JonTron's show may be popular but it lacks sources to indicate its notability, NormalBoots lacks an article and thus does not appear to be notable, and Game Grumps is indeed notable and has its own article, but notability is not inherited by being involved with a notable topic (e.g. Game Grumps' Ross and Danny are also huge contributors to the channel, but neither of them has an article). Lastly, Wikipedia welcomes articles about subjects who are notable from any field (in fact, Wikipedia even has a separate notability guideline just for web content), but those subjects must still meet the notability guideline. -Iago Qnsi 05:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. Jon has certainly become very notable, and his peer, Arin Hanson, also has a Wikipedia page, which is a non-issue. The two have worked closely together on a show which also has, again, a non-issue Wikipedia page. With his strong popularity, and the fact that one can read about the other two subjects, I feel that to deny this page would create an unnecessary, and inconvenient denial of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.53.130 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 199.102.53.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited, and Arin Hanson is considered notable for reasons beyond his involvement with JonTron and Game Grumps, such as his work for MTV, his voice acting roles in several notable games (TOME, the game JonTron voice acted in, does not already have an article), and his association in Starbomb. Being involved in Game Grumps also does not indicate notability; Danny, Ross, Barry, and Suzy are also major contributors to Game Grumps who lack their own articles. Deleting this article would not make important information unavailable, as the important content from this page could be merged into the Game Grumps article (and "JonTron" could be made to redirect to that article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IagoQnsi (talk • contribs) 03:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where Wikipedia is coming from. They fear the rapid influx of Youtubers that deem themselves relevant enough for a Wikipedia page. But, the fact that you had to state that this isn't a majority vote is sort of backwards isn't it? If there is a boat load of people saying yes KEEP this page up wouldn't that make it relevant/significant? Even with that I can still see how that may be an issue. If it were solely up to a majority vote every popular kid in every high school would have a Wikipedia page. Regardless, a quick visit to his page and a Google search can clear up and quips you may have as to whether or not the page should stay up. I can't help but wonder if this is really a result of someone not taking Youtubers seriously rather than a policy issue. Keep Purcival (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Purcival (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One or two dozen people reading a tweet and placing a vote doesn't indicate notability. I could get a couple dozen of my friends to all go to the United States article and vote that it should be deleted, but that wouldn't indicate that the United States isn't notable. Wikipedia discussions are not settled by the most popular arguments, but by the most merited ones. That notice at the top of the page serves to deter anyone who are coming just to place a vote and have no intentions of making a useful contribution to the discussion. While JonTron may be very popular, that does not necessarily indicate notability. Wikipedia is very open to having lots of articles about YouTubers, but merely having a lot of subscribers doesn't indicate notability. SkyDoesMinecraft, for example, is the 16th most subscribed YouTube channel with 7.8 million subscribers, but it does not have an article. Notability must be established through secondary sources and verifiable claims of importance, not through subscriber counts. -Iago Qnsi 05:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note: JonTron has sent out a tweet encouraging fans to voice support for the article. In the interest of sustaining a fair and balanced discussion, I feel it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the discussion will be settled based on the merits of the arguments made, not by the number of users making those arguments. -Iago Qnsi 02:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man is definitly notable enough to have an article. He has nearly 1 MILLION subscribers. You can be an unbelievably obscure movie actor and get a page, but having a million followers as a content creator on the internet isn't enough? Come on now. The YouTuber is a rapidly growing profession and people like him are only ever going to become even more notable, even if you don't deem him worthy enough now (for some reason), the article is really solid with sources and everything, and you might as well leave it up as his notability will only increase. Pureownege75 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Pureownege75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't matter how many subscribers or followers you have on social media. Its whether or not they receive coverage in reliable, third party sources. Articles written about the subject at hand. This is an encyclopedia, not a Youtube popularity contest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've never even heard of him (which is surprising, considering how much time I spend watching Game Theory and Tobuscus and all kinds of other YouTubers in the same vein as him), but the article, while it's got a few small issues, is definitely good enough for here. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how well written the article is, what matters is whether or not the subject of the article is notable; article content does not determine notability. -Iago Qnsi 03:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I seem to have forgotten to mention the good sourcing it has. Yes, many are from YouTube and Twitter and the like, but there's still plenty that are fine. Thanks for pointing that out. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His video series has been very popular for many years now on both his own website normal boots as well as on youtube. The fact he is running a popular website along with a youtube channel should be factored in. The article does a good job detailing his work and his projects past and present. It seems like there would be little debate if he was someone who has produced this much content in a medium such as TV or Film or even a newspaper. Seeing as old media is quickly becoming less and less relevant we should treat new media figure heads with a substantial body of works with the same amount of credibility and stature.
- Here is his tag on Kotaku with multiple articles about his works including a long one about his break from Game Grumps -- this makes the suggestion of merging his info into the Game Grumps article less viable
- Here is his tag on Screw Attack with multiple articles of substantial length -- his departure from Game Grumps generated a large amount of notability along with articles about his appearance on live panels at multiple gaming/new media conventions.
- Here here and here -- are just three examples of the over 100+ articles on Destructoid that discuss Jon's works going back many years covering his time prior to joining Gamer Grumps as well as after he left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.17.169 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 71.177.17.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's all well and good, but none of those sources seems to indicate notability. There are some brief articles about videos that JonTron made, but those articles all focus on the game that JonTron played in whatever video, and aren't about JonTron himself. The only articles that do lend some notice to Jon himself are the articles about Game Grumps changing when Jon left; that is, JonTron only gets mentioned because of his involvement with the more notable entity Game Grumps. Not to mention, that these articles are all very short except for the Kotaku article, which talks more about Danny and Ross (Jon's successors) and about the fan response to the changes. It's true, there are a lot of minor mentions about JonTron, but none of them indicate notability. Just because a subject has been associated with notable things in minor capacities on many occasions does not make them notable by themselves; notability is not inherited. -Iago Qnsi 04:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Game Grumps. As many others have pointed out, this article has a lot of references. However, merely having references does not establish notability; the subject must meet the general notability guideline. Looking through the list of references, most of them are primary sources -- links to YouTube videos/channels and JonTron's twitter -- that can be skipped over, as notabilility is not established by primary sources. References from unverifiable sources (e.g. reddit discussions, personal blogs, etc.) can also be overlooked, as Wikipedia requires reliable sources. References that are about Game Grumps as a whole and not JonTron specifically also do not sufficiently establish notability because notability is not inherited. Now that we've narrowed down the source list to just the ones that might establish notability, let's see what's left:
- A brief Kotaku article about bootleg Pokemon games played by JonTron - the article is more focused on the games than on JonTron and does not inherently demonstrate notability
- Some short articles by Destructoid about games JonTron has played or his involvement in Game Grumps. These give weak indication of notability, but without more articles from sources besides Destructoid, I don't think these sufficiently establish notability.
- An IMDb article showing his role in TOME - it seems that TOME does not meet the GNG, so being involved with it does not establish notability
- A link about a JonTron easter egg in DLC Quest - the link is dead, but even if another reference about the same fact were found, notability is not inherited so a minor easter egg doesn't show notability

None of these few references indicate notability strongly enough to suggest that JonTron is notable enough for an article. Unless a reference could be found that strongly indicates notability, I think this content is better suited for a JonTron section in the Game Grumps article. -Iago Qnsi 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: However, I'd push that this page be re-orientated towards Jon Jafari as a notable person (meaning renaming the page to "Jon Jafari") who is a notable youtuber. As far as merging with GameGrumps I'd have to disagree given that he is no longer with GameGrumps and his current wiki page is more than just GG. I will agree that more notable citations are needed but we don't need to adhere to the guidelines so closely (except for primary citations of course).Avitus27 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, not every reference on an article needs to establish notability. That is most certainly not necessary, but there does need to be *some* sources that establish notability, and at present, it seems that none of the existing sources do that. And yes, it is true that JonTron has done other things outside of Game Grumps, but it seems that pretty much everything he's done that indicates any level of notability was in relation to Game Grumps. He has had brief/minor/distant involvement with some other notable subjects, but that doesn't mean he needs to have his own article; the articles for those other subjects could link to JonTron's section in the Game Grumps article, or they could simply not mention him at all in cases where his involvement was so minor. -Iago Qnsi 04:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Why the hell delete it, Look at all the hard work that's been put into it, Do you people just love f*cking with good content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.24.66 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — 101.161.24.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am moving this comment to the bottom of the discussion, as it was placed directly in the middle of Salvidrim!'s comment and subsequently removed entirely by ThomasO1989. However harsh and sarcastic the comment may be, it's not necessarily bad faith (though it doesn't belong in the middle of another comment). -Iago Qnsi 06:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes a particular let's player noteworthy? Robbaz King of Sweden plays video games and raises money for Doctor's without borders, PewdiePie has a wiki page for doing pretty much what everyone else does. Jon has had various writing and script roles that put him behind other shows. Game Grumps is a fraction because he's also held a long running internet series, contributed to Channel Awesome and that guy with glasses, if that doesn't establish him as notable, then what would? He's distinguished himself from lets plays alone, pursuing his own show, and he's written for numerous others 92.28.192.10 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— 92.28.192.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep, he's a saint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.102.220 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2014— 173.65.102.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:NOTAVOTE -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the kind of articles you are looking for to confirm notability?
http://www.destructoid.com/jontron-died-and-on-the-third-day-rose-again-262420.phtml

–reference to game grumps but mostly celebrating his independent show

http://arcadesushi.com/top-jontron-episodes/

–more coverage of his independent works

http://sgconvention.com/blog/jontron-angry-joe-game-theory-and-more-coming-sgc-2014
this one I'm somewhat shaky on it's mostly an announcement about his attendance to a convention but does cover his volume of work
http://www.screwattack.com/news/normalboots-returns
http://www.kaleonaopio.com/entertainment/2014/02/13/normal-boots-are-back/
http://www.bubblews.com/news/2216103-normalboots-is-re-booted
mostly coverage of the relaunch of a website that he started but shows notability outside of game grumps
http://indiestatik.com/2014/03/31/most-expensive-game-jam/
he is of some note in this incident, though this one might be more about the entire production of game_jam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJSMgWWzcvc
Not sure how much weight an interview from a youtube channel counts?

I would also like to contest articles you shot down before

http://kotaku.com/5907309/kinect-star-wars-is-a-terrible-game-but-damn-if-it-isnt-fun/all
http://kotaku.com/a-journey-through-bootleg-pokemon-games-1524340300
http://kotaku.com/5896732/laugh-through-16-minutes-of-this-bubsy-collection-review/all

–you said these articles are all about the games hes playing but it's more highlighting jontron's own show and his humorous take on the games in the videos. The last one being the strongest case. They already had several articles about kinect star wars for example, this is to highlight his specific video about it and not the game itself, which at the time had so much additional coverage. Dynemanti (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Dynemanti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll go through these sources one by one:

- Destructoid link: very brief, very casual bulletin mentioning JonTron leaving Game Grumps and linking to two videos he's made. With a lot of other good references, this could contribute a little to establishing notability, but on its own its not much.
- top 10 episodes on ArcadeSushi: ArcadeSushi doesn't appear to be a reliable source -- I can find no information about it from secondary sources, and they seem to be more of a BuzzFeed-like entertainment site rather than a proper verifiable news source
- SGConvention link: tiny bio on website of non-notable convention, doesn't establish any notability
- 3 links about NormalBoots: NormalBoots is not notable enough to have its own article, so the fact that JonTron founded it doesn't establish any notability
- GAME_JAM article: JonTron played a minor role in GAME_JAM, which is a footnote in the history of Polaris, which is one of several subsidiaries of Maker Studios. Maker Studios is notable, but one of its subsidiary's failed reality show's video makers is not.
- J1 Studios YouTube video: J1 Studios doesn't constitute a reliable source, so this video doesn't establish notability
- Kotaku links: extremely brief articles, more "hey look at this cool thing" than actual verifiable journalism, about content JonTron has made rather than JonTron himself (across all three of those articles, I count two sentences that include any information about who JonTron is).

Of all of those links, only the Destructoid article could even remotely be considered as one that establishes notability, and even that one is quite a stretch. I'm sorry, but there are just no sources that establish JonTron to be a sufficiently notable subject. -Iago Qnsi 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am beginning to understand the kind of information you are looking for, thanks for addressing each individually. I just have two questions now. First would those sources talking about his work then be used to establish notability for his Youtube show JonTron and could this entry be converted to information on that instead of the person himself? Parenting all current information in the article under that, instead of gamegrumps? Secondly what is the issue with arcade sushi exactly? They have a regular staff with editorial oversight, not sure what makes them less reliable than something like kotakuDynemanti (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Of the articles I've seen, none of them established the notability of Jon Jafari or of the JonTron Show, so neither of those topics could have their own article without better sources for notability. Parenting the information under the Game Grumps article, however, is most certainly an option; in fact, I think it's exactly the route that should be taken here. 2) Arcade Sushi may indeed have strong editorial oversight, but they are not exclusively a news site. They do cover some serious news, but they also cover miscellaneous things that they find interesting or humorous that aren't necessarily newsworthy or notable. Basically, they appear to act more or less as a fansite rather than a reliable source in their coverage of JonTron. -Iago Qnsi 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry, but there just isn't significant coverage by third party, reliable sources to the point to meet the WP:GNG. The sources presented so far, either aren't considered reliable, or do not discuss JonTron in detail. He needs to be the main subject of the sources, and discussed significantly. I just don't see it. Youtube channels and footage of him playing video games do not count towards notability on Wikpedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Sergecross73. Lack of reliable sources showing direct notability of JonTron. Notability is not inherited from his shows, the fact that other Youtubers may or may not have articles is irrelevant, and popularity doesn't matter. -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Keep per copious third-party citations and evidence of high popularity. If we had to get rid of all articles without in-depth coverage in a variety of sources that focused on them above anything else, we'd lose a huge percentage of our fictional characters, for example. (Rather than WP:Other stuff exists, we keep those as their notability is well-supported in other ways.) I think the best argument in favor of deletion, though still not one I support, is redundancy compared to Game Grumps. Tezero (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero:, can you point out which 4 or 5 reliable sources are providing significant coverage enough to meet the GNG? It looks like there's a lot until you start wading through it all. So much of them are his own Youtube videos, Reddit articles, or social media posts. The few that are useable, http://kotaku.com/5972934/watch-this-silly-source-filmmaker-re-creation-of-two-youtubers-absolutely-losing-it/all like this Kotaku source], are extremely short and barely mention him. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tezero, I just wanted to throw out to you as well that fictional characters that are notable usually are covered with in-depth coverage from third-party sources. That's not your plot in those articles; that's your development and reception information, which is the part that gives notability to the character and not its role in a fictional work. I think you'll find in those cases that the character articles you write actually are covered significantly in reliable, third-party sources. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, I looked more in-depth, and admittedly the sources as used in the article didn't really establish his popularity. I've added information about that, though, as well as some reception. Tezero (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix:, there's a difference between in-depth coverage in third-party sources and being the main subject. It's unlikely that any of the Sonic character articles up right now will get deleted anytime soon, but only Sonic and maybe one or two more fit the latter case. (I wasn't even just talking about the articles I work on; the number of game characters with reliable dedicated features on them is probably in the double digits.) Tezero (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added still don't demonstrate significant coverage, they're all very minimal, passing mentions. This Destructoid source you added is entirely based off of Nintendo Pikmin trivia, and barely contains a full sentence actually about JonTron. The other Destructoid source was mostly about GameGrumps, not him in particular. I mean, its fine if you want to add little bits of passing mentions to articles, but it's hardly the type of coverage establishes notability. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Crave Online one? It's got a good full paragraph on him. Also, the first Kotaku source and the first Destructoid one mention that he's popular on YouTube, comparably so to Egoraptor. Tezero (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, they mention him. Passing mentions. Fine for adding to articles, but not for notability. I will concede that at least the "Crave Online" article has a paragraph on him, though even then, 1/7th of the article was focused on him. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that, for opinions about worthiness or quality, a few passing mentions aren't considered enough here. But those pages mention more than that: they mention that he's a popular YouTuber, comparably so to Egoraptor. Egoraptor has a well-established article, and while notability is not inherited, I think Egoraptor provides a good baseline. In other words, we can get directly from the sources that JonTron has a certain amount of notability rather than having to glean it from overall coverage. Tezero (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this about Egoraptor unfortunately falls under other stuff. And as you also already noted, Egoraptor's notability cannot be inherited by JonTron. There's also a difference between verifiability versus notability. Yes, we can find sources that verify that JonTron is a popular YouTuber. But it's not the same thing as notability. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, or at least it's one of several paths to notability. I followed your link to WP:N and, of the categories listed, JonTron seems most like a "creative professional" or "entertainer". I contend that he fulfills #1 and #3 out of the four possible criteria for creative professionals and #2 out of the three for entertainers. More generally, the text states that "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and JonTron also fulfills that. Neither one of these is a guarantee of notability, but neither is anything else. Tezero (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Masem already points out below, he fails WP:CREATIVE because it refers to "periodical articles or reviews". Stuff from blogs like Kotaku or Destructoid do not fit that definition at all. Not sure ENTERTAINER could be applied either, considering just about any of the claims are made merely by the fanbase, not by sources. I don't think either were created to defend internet personalities like this... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, what a mess... Okay, so let's talk a little bit about notability, shall we? What makes a person notable is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. "Significant coverage" indicates that the coverage is focused on the subject, which none of the sources here are. Because notability is not inherited, either, notability of his series, if it is, does not reflect on his individual notability for coverage. "Reliable, third-party sources" indicates that the sources are independent of the subject and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This is not present here, either. Significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources is a requirement for an article to be here because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'd like to remind the editors here, as well, of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in regards to a few of the arguments here. We need to keep discussion specifically to the article at hand and the notability of the subject. However, to those brought here by Jon's message, I'd encourage all of you to learn a little bit about Wikipedia, notability, and what good articles look like. I'm sure any of us here who are regulars would be more than glad to teach and train new editors on the finer points of notability and article writing. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so simple, I don't believe. If it were, this discussion wouldn't even be occurring. I see a lot of good points for both sides, and while I am for JonTron's article staying (being a fan), there's a largely vague nature about some of Wikipedia's idea of notability, significant coverage, and reliable third party sources. This discussion I assume is here to find that line at how notable is notable enough, what is a reliable third party source, and how much coverage is significant coverage? I hope you see it isn't as black and white. Personally, I find the sources sited in this discussion to be quite substantial, whilst others dispute it. I guess that's why we're discussing. Darrark (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)— Darrark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Agreed. It's also not as though all the support votes here are coming from users JonTron invited. Tezero (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion. I do not see an attempt here at meeting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Game Grumps. If you take out all the youtube video references, the TGWTG videos, and other non-reliable sources from this article, you're left with almost nothing to support an article. GG is a notable youtube outlet, and while he's no long associated with it, that's where a brief bio of him and anyone else associated with GG can be included (outside of probably Egoraptor who is notable beyond GG). --MASEM (t) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant guideline here is WP:CREATIVE: Creative professionals are reliable if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Has JonTron's collective YouTube work been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles? Nintendolife, Kotaku 2 3 4 5, Destructoid 2 3 4 5. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kotaku and Destroid are not periodicals, nor are the linked articles "reviews" of JonTron's work, just pointing out "hey, this exists, go laugh". --MASEM (t) 20:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After weeding through the Reddit, youtube and similar worthless pseudo-sources, there simply is not sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article about the subject. Yes, he clearly has some fans (is 16 !votes out of 22 a WP:SPA record?), but that is not notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many times is this page going to be remade by fanboys and how many times are we going to have to delete it? I think these pages should be protected from being re-created by admins. Maybe have to make a request for creation or something. This page has been deleted and re-created several times, and there are none or very few sources to denote notability. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Time to WP:SALT it, perhaps? Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harizotoh9: recreation is not a reason for a delete vote. KonveyorBelt 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the issue here: User_talk:Salvidrim!#Jontron.2FJon_Jafari. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the third party reliable references standard as many have already pointed out. Intothat darkness 20:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources, lack of notability, page being remade by fanboys, I support the suggestion to protect it from being re-created. RavageMX (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Game Grumps. The Kotaku sources are about Game Grumps. No other significant hits other than passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS search. JT is definitely a figure, but he doesn't pass the GNG just yet. This said, this AfD is likely in vain because it is a matter of time before a feature is done on him—but that is then and this is now. Keep the redirect since it's a likely search term. God, good luck to whomever's closing this beast. czar ♔ 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not even fully familiar with the sites rules yet and I can tell the reasons given to keep this article alive are not well thought out. The main 3 arguments for keeping revolve around John being "Popular", which is a vague term in reality, "Merging", and "there are things he has been involved with that have their own articles".

Popularity doesn't mean anything at all. If Angry Joe Vargus, Alpha Omega Sin, Blunty3000, Manperish, Retsupurae, and darksydephil don't have their own Wikipedia pages, than why should Jon Tron be an exception? 2 of the guys I named above have been paid by gaming companies for advertisements, one has been awarded, 3 have large dedicated followings on youtube and twitter, 2 have actually influenced the creation of other channels and a few websites, one works at a popular game studio, and NONE of these people have a Wikipedia page. So why should Jon Tron get away with it? I would even push for removing the The Spoony Experiment for the same reasons.
We can't merge the page into Game Grumps because he is no longer with Game Grumps, and some of the references that have been added and removed have nothing to do with GG at all (or even him really, other than giving a small nod his way acknowledging his existence for 3 seconds). Half of the references don't meet the reliability guidelines to be included in pages that are already active, let alone a new page.
You can't give an argument of, "If Charlie has a Wikipedia page, Jim can too". It doesn't work like that. Why would we make an article about the guy who brought John Carmack donuts when he made Doom or that guy who put up the flags in a Samuel L. Jackson movie? Parts of John Trons cast and the very studio he works with don't have pages. There are individuals more popular the him who are with big companies that HAVE articles (Machinama) and they don't have articles even by association. There should not be any exceptions!

(Before some one tries it, yes I know "Angry Joe" redirects to a page, but it has nothing to do with Joe himself.) TheRealAfroMan (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, on the merging aspect, it is completely fair for a work that may be notable but where the people currently involved or were involved in the past are for the most part not notable to have a cast list with brief bios on the cast , past and present. In this case, save for Arin, the rest of the cast including JonTRon could be listed here; Arin's would have a main-link and a brief summary here. Consider also that while this article is "long" for a short bio, once you strip out all youtube and non-RS links and information only cited to them, you basically have a single paragraph to be included and merged to GG, about Normal Boots, the JonTron show, being one of the creators of GG and then wanting to move on ~year later, and some additional voice and animation work. "JonTron" is a searchable term so absolute deletion is unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 06:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I am not convinced that the page adequately demonstrates notability via third-party reliable sources. A few mentions here and there in Kotaku and other places isn't exactly firm proof that the subject is a notable individual. Many of the citations used are self-published sources, and it appears that there has been an attempt to puff up the references section so that the subject may appear more notable than he actually is. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not enough reliable secondary sources. Orser67 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I still feel that the article probably satisfies WP:N's requirements for individuals, I'm surprised this discussion is still open, as few support votes have come from users with a history of previous edits. Tezero (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are held open a week before closure, usually (so that everyone gets a chance to participate) czar ♔ 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an avid fan myself, i still do not think that he meets the guidelines, and most of the supports are from people who saw his tweet and came here to protest it, many YouTubers that are bigger then Jon don't have on either (Uberhaxornova and Angry Joe off the top of my head) and he does not need one, all notability is WP:INHERIT and most sources are not from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMesquito (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - having billions of twelve-year old fans on YouTube and getting articles written about you in obscure video game blogs does not notability make. --YasminPerry (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepProcedurally, I see no real reason in the nomination for deletion. This AfD and the article are both a mess. But AfD is not cleanup. What perhaps could be done is to steer the article away from being about JonTron the channel, and more towards Jon Jafari the person. If we turn the article to being more about Jon Jafari as opposed to his show, more of those "passing mentions" in articles about the Game Grumps can be better used. KonveyorBelt 16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Konveyor Belt, the "procedural" part was because Salvidrim closed the prior AFD deletion discussion a bit prematurely, and then had second thoughts on his decision, so he relisted it. The deletion argument, prominent in both the 2nd nom he closed prematurely, and all across the discussion, is that there simply isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. AFD is not cleanup, but no one proposed deleting it because it was sloppy. Quite the opposite, nothing you said was a valid reason for keeping it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, if it does not get kept this third time it can't be reinstated at all later right? Or does the second one count because there were second thoughts? TheRealAfroMan (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that there is any rule like that. Even if the article is salted someone can try to submit a new version per WP:AFC if they believe that at a future point JonTron has become notable. Of course it will need to be of better quality than the deleted version to be accepted. This recently happened with Madison Eagles which was deleted 4 times, recreated per an accepted afc submission and survived a 5th AFD as a WP:SNOW. Its currently at deletion review but it is leaning towards endorsing the keep close.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Game Grumps. Not enough coverage independent of his involvement with Game Grumps to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Austin Murray[edit]

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

Struggled to discover how he passes WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. He's had some exhibition work, but his work isn't held in any major collections that I could discover, and most of the coverage in secondary sources are press release related. Mainly blogs covering his work and mere mentions. SarahStierch (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, I managed a passing reference in 2011, but haven't seen, and don't see looking the last few moments, coverage that reaches GNG. Of course, additional sources welcomed, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sole reference in the article is indeed a passing mention merely providing colour in a travel article. I am not finding anything better in multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia); a lack of evidence that the subject meets WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 5 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mosnier[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. For the record, this article was deleted in French Wikipedia for notability purposes. I failed to find reliable secondary sources to establish his notability. SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also turns out the writer of the article is a single purpose account that goes by the name User talk:Mosnier. SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 02:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article that has survived a remarkably long time sourced only to the subject's website. I found an online interview but of unclear notability, and it makes no claim for the subject being well known; for the rest, only social media. No reason to disagree with the decision of the July 2013 French Wikipedia discussion. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 4 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. I'm retracting my nomination. Sorry for wasting everyone's time! SarahStierch (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Modern Hr.Sec.School[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. But perhaps others can prove otherwise! SarahStierch (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The title suggests it may be a secondary school, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding solid evidence for if the school exists. Official website is dead, and the article is in bad condition. Fails WP:V, more than anything. If anyone else can find some quality sources to show WP:ORG, I will gladly change my !vote. Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - High schools of verified existence are presumed notable, but I find no evidence proving existence in a little Google-a-thon. Wikipedia and mirror sites and a dead web site purporting to have been that of the school. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly exists.[32] That's enough to keep a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Official web site shows it exists, and also show that it is a high school. It could be improved, but it should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks all. Sometimes I still get confused on the guidelines for schools, even after all these years. Sorry I wasted your time. I retract my AfD and if ya'll don't mind I'll close it out myself. SarahStierch (talk) 15:48, 5 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.