Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 April 6 April >

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 keep --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dugave[edit]

Dugave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources and no evidence of notability. A quick Google search didn't turn up any results. So far the article has only served to attract vandalism. G S Palmer (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a place where 10k people live[1] is notable in and of itself as a gazetteer matter, WP:5. Nevertheless, the other concerns may be alleviated by upmerging it into its district article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its an important and officially recognized settlement and you already see the source for it. We don't delete articles because someone vandalized it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  As per Joy.  10,000 people is fine for having a stand-alone article, so there are no administrative tools needed here.  At the same time, if content contributors want to reorganize the material, that is outside the purview of AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 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The result was WITHDRAWN by nominator. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Hits[edit]

Original Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively unknown collection, featuring material released by a former record label. no significant except the track listing and it's release → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2 - read this. I am tempted to expand this article to DYK level.--Launchballer 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question in what ways does it meet (or not meet) WP:NALBUMS criteria? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signature? I find WP:NALBUMS very vague, I tend to apply the WP:NSONGS criteria to albums.--Launchballer 00:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer you can't just ignore WP:NALBUMS because you find it vague. One review (from Allmusic) and information about release dates but no charts doesn't make an album notable. Even music notability criteria aside it doesn't and won't pass WP:GNG → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The album has charted, on three regional charts and in the Bubbling Under Hot 100.--Launchballer 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! can someone speedy close this then as a keep? → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:48, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter List[edit]

Peter List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7 speedy recreated. Sources appear to indicate existence but not substative proof to address notability. Tawker (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. It was earlier speedied by JMHamo as per WP:CSD#A7, and was re-created within few hours as a request to return his deleted article (not a place to request WP:REFUND), tagged by me under WP:CSD#G2 criteria. Article has been refunded and few sources has been made available which now actually does mention the subject, but it still does not help the subject to reach WP:BIO or WP:GNG standard. Neither does help Google on my laptop. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO due to a lack of reliable sources that are not just WP:ROUTINE. JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - upon another review, some concerns about BLP violations - especially with weakly sourced stuff. -- Tawker (talk) 21:08, 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 Delete.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Fighting Championship[edit]

Cage Fighting Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable MMA organisation that has little or no third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no sources or indication of why this promotion is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources and WP:NORG says that an organization isn't notable just because notable people belong (or in the case have fought in it).Mdtemp (talk) 18:50, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Parker[edit]

RJ Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7 speedy, references appear borderline as to establish notability... Tawker (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe it should be kept based on the work he has done in regards to notable cases and prominent serial killers of our time. He is an established author that has worked with Peter Vronsky and also is a publisher of other authors in the genre. I believe if his notability is in question, then many other authors/writers should be in question as well. Writers such as Bill Bauer or Gillian Chan have hardly any references or material information, yet are not in contention. Those are just a couple that I randomly chose from a list in Wikipedia.Jasonwilczak (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Fair enough point on the WP:NOTINHERITED concept. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that isn't valid, in my opinion. If one can establish that even though the "law", A7, reads a specific way there are many other instances of where articles have been accepted that toe the line or simply don't follow it. This can be used to set Precedent to defend the idea that the article in question should stay and not be singled out as a "special case". In the event of List of Canadian writers , I believe this is the case. Additionally, this article has more references and biography citations than the ones pointed out. Jasonwilczak (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bauer's article doesn't even make a basic claim of notability in the first place, so it can be deleted anytime anybody decides to take the initiative has now had a solid reliable source added to it. It could still be nominated for deletion if anybody felt strongly enough that it isn't making enough of a notability claim, but it's no longer strictly comparable to this situation. Chan has been a Governor General's Award nominee, however — so while the article certainly has sourcing problems and could still be deleted if better references can't be found, it is already making a more substantive and compelling claim of basic notability than either Bauer's or Parker's articles, in their current states, are. (And before you try to give Parker's "World Book Award" win as an analogue to Chan's GG, it bears mention that not all literary awards are equally notable either. The GGs are an elite national award with extensive coverage in reliable sources — the Canadian equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize — whereas I can't find enough RS coverage on Google to properly determine what the "World Book Awards" even are.) Also, both of those articles were created in 2003, a time when Wikipedia was still quite new and our notability and sourcing rules weren't nearly as thoroughly developed and codified as they are now — a lot of stuff that seemed perfectly fine back then falls afoul of our rules as they stand now. Somebody has to actually catch these things before they can be dealt with, however, so the fact that something has slipped through the cracks does not create an exemption from Wikipedia's rules. A bad old article should be flagged for improvement or deletion, by all means — but it does not constitute a license to ignore Wikipedia's sourcing requirements in a new article being created today. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to just meet WP:BASIC, and we are far from WP:NAUTHOR. (Article was created in main space in March looking something like this, complete with announcements of upcoming books and direct links to Amazon, and despite my pruning was deleted under G11 on 25 March.) Sam Sailor Sing 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, this is true and I appreciate all that you did to help get it into the correct format. The reason for deletion was because a "reliable" source marked the post as having been procured. I spoke with the admin in regards to this matter and resolved that point. The admin did not object to me re-posting the article with a more objective view point and I even went a step further and removed anything that could have been deemed promotional and not wiki-worthy. Jasonwilczak (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this article lacks, as written, is anything that even approaches being a reliable source under our rules. Rather, every single source here is (a) his own website, (b) the non-notable blog of a non-notable other writer, or (c) a press release hosted on a PR database. Such sources might be acceptable for additional sourcing of facts after his notability had been demonstrated by reliable secondary sources, but cannot demonstrate notability in and of themselves — meaning that nothing here properly demonstrates that he's gotten past WP:WRITER. The subject matter that a writer happens to write about does not automatically confer an exemption from Wikipedia's other notability rules, so the fact that he wrote about serial killers is irrelevant to the question of whether he's notable enough or not — and a writer does not inherit notability just by virtue of having worked with other notable writers, either. It's certainly possible that a properly sourced article about him might be attainable in the future, so there should be no prejudice against recreation if and when the availability of sources improves — but this version of the article ain't cutting it, and after 20 full pages of Google searching I have yet to find even one source about him that passes muster. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schein–Joseph International Museum of Ceramic Art[edit]

Schein–Joseph International Museum of Ceramic Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially unsourced (only "reference" is to its own website). Doesn't seem to make much, if any, claim to notability. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. A lack of references in-article does not equate to a lack of available references. A basic Google Books search suggests a number of reliable sources are available, an ongoing academic connection exists with the Alfred University and the subject itself has published several topical books. The references in tourism-related sources alone could be enough to allow this to pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added some sources, which took approximately 2.2 seconds with Google. Easily complemented by the book sources Stalwart referenced above. StarM 17:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:BEFORE was clearly not performed with consideration of AfD. Not being sourced in itself, baring serious BLP violations, is not reason for deletion. Being a museum containing over 8,000 ceramic works is a claim of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:17, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Marshall (actor)[edit]

Joshua Marshall (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, relying on one single primary source, of an "actor" known only for self-produced YouTube videos (it claims he's won awards, but fails to mention or source what organization even granted any of them.) No properly reliable sources can be found on a Google search either, imagine my surprise. (For the record, I also suspect some form of conflict of interest here, as the level of detail about him is remarkably deep — parents' names, even — for a person who's so poorly attested in any substantive sources, but I can't prove that outright.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. He doesn't even have an IMDb entry, which has much lower standards. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - roles to date do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find coverage in notable publications to establish that he meets WP:GNG.  Gongshow   talk 00:25, 13 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satirical hip hop[edit]

Satirical hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a trainwreck. No offense to whoever made it, but I really don't see it as necessary to differentiate this from 'comedy hip hop'. Although Odd Future and Lil B do satirize gangsta rap at times, they have a wide range of other types of songs (including, in Lil B's case, a fair few legitimate gangsta rap songs). Also why it only includes these two weak examples, instead of say Riff Raff or Dirt Nasty, is beyond me. "Meme rap" is just a derogatory term for rappers who found their start on the Internet, such as Yung Lean and C-Reezy, and isn't really linked to satirical rap at all.Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I completed the nomination. ansh666 21:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (maybe) - plenty of Eminem's early stuff is satirical and people like "Wierd Al" Yankovic had some hip hop material (all satirical). That the examples used are bad is not really a reason to delete the article. There should be enough material to support an article about this topic, even if this isn't it. Stalwart111 01:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:25, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of whistleblowers[edit]

List of whistleblowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn by Nominator I stand by the reasoning below, and believe that most of the dissent has not addressed the issues I've raised. But its clear this is going nowhere.

I suppose this will stir up a lot of controversy, but I believe that this article violates WP:NPOV by its very existence, and there is no way to edit it to bring it into compliance.

1) Wikipedia is not a directory WP:NOTDIR

2) As a "whistleblower" is someone who reveals hidden illegal or immoral activity by an organization to authorities, it will be in most cases (those in which there is no conviction by a competent court, thus demonstrating illegality) be necessary for the editor to make a moral judgment as to whether the organization's activity was immoral. In the act of making this judgment and placing the person's name on the list, NPOV is violated. Per the NPOV policy,

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone".

In practice, as one might expect under these circumstances, the entire article is a list of "heros" who exposed organizational behaviors that one editor or another found repugnant. One might argue that if the list was limited to those whose disclosures led to criminal convictions, one could cite the court's decision as evidence that the allegations were correct and that the organization had acted illegally. But this would exclude many people that most of us would consider whistleblowers. And if criminal convictions arising from the disclosure are used to determine that the discloser was a true whistleblower, how does one handle the cases in which the "whistleblower" him/herself was convicted of violating confidentiality agreements, national security laws, etc.

In short, how to we decide if someone is a whistleblower without making a moral judgment? And if individual editors make moral judgments, we are flying in the face of NPOV. We describe disputes, we don't take sides in them. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Formerly 98: can you please explain why you believe this article violates WP:NOTDIR? Identifying which of the six numbered items in that policy section, that this list article violates would be a good start. Additionally, please explain why this particular list is different than any other in that regard. As for your second point, we identify individuals for inclusion on the list just as we do all other content - by summarizing sources. Since sources exist that are both reliable and identify individuals as "whistleblowers", Wikipedia is operating within its own policies to identify those individuals as such. I did attempt to formalize some inclusion criteria a couple of years back for this article, which technically reached closure but the consensus we not very strong. In summary, since your your nomination you have not presented any reasoning that should drive a decision to delete this article, my opinion is Strong keep. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We follow reliable sources in deciding who is or is not a whistleblower, not what any individual editor considers to be a whistleblower. If there are no WP:RS stating that a subject is a whistleblower, then he or she doesn't belong on the list. I see no policy-based reason for deleting the list. --NSH001 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note added in response to comments below, and to expand and clarify my point:OK, I figured this one would not be popular. Let me try some examples. Maybe these will allow us to understand each other's position on whether, as I have proposed, this is an intrinsically non-NPOV article. Would you object, and on what basis, if I added the following persons to the whistleblower list?
A) Senator Jame Inofe, for disclosing a video which "reveals a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA's "general philosophy" is to "crucify" and "make examples" of oil and gas companies.". The administrator was subsequently forced to resign." (Fox News)
B) The hacker who released emails from climate scientists at the University of Anglia in which "scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data." (WSJ)
I scratched the reference to WP:Directory, on further review I believe I misunderstood it.
Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask if the reliable sources identify either of those two individuals as "whistleblowers." That would be a discussion for the article talk page though, not AfD. Generally, you seem to misunderstand the way in which deletion is used on Wikipedia. There is no requirement to delete a list because the selection or exclusion of its content may be difficult. See WP:SURMOUNTABLE, WP:DINC, and WP:BATHWATER for related essays. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think I've "misunderstood the process", and I don't think the problem is that "selection or exclusion of the content is difficult". The point I'm trying to argue is that selection of the content is intrinsically a value judgment on the part of the editors, which goes against NPOV. And honestly, I think for about a third of the people currently on that list, you'd have a very difficult time finding a "reliable source" that describes them as whistleblowers.
If this where not a value-loaded and intensely political term, the Wikipedia article on True the Vote wouldn't have quotation marks around the word "whistleblower" when referring to Anita Moncrief. The purpose of these quotation marks is clearly to give a nod to the idea that others have called her that, but that the editor of the article rejects the use of the term to describe her.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think I've "misunderstood the process" Fair enough, I struck the comment above as it does, upon rereading, come off as patronizing which was not my goal. I apologize. The point I'm trying to argue is that selection of the content is intrinsically a value judgment on the part of the editors. No, we defer to reliable sources. I think for about a third of the people currently on that list, you'd have a very difficult time finding a "reliable source" that describes them as whistleblowers. Very possibly true, but as mentioned above not a reason to delete the entire article. From a practical standpoint, I just reviewed the actual entries in the list and most (not all) had reliable sources that explicitly identified the people as whistleblowers. Many have received Qui tam financial awards, which seems like a pretty quantitative bar to me. Your reasoning for deletion would only make sense to me if the inclusion criteria question were insurmountable, and I do not understand how you could possibly reach that conclusion in this case. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, its clear this proposal is going nowhere, but just for my intellectual satisfaction: If the court granting a Qui tam award is an objective standard for calling these folks "whistleblowers", what about the cases where the "whistleblower" was convicted of violating national security laws and sent to jail for their disclosure? If the courts are final arbiters of who is a whistleblower, I would presume that these people would have to be removed. If I found the name of the person who betrayed Nelson Mandela, would his conviction by a South African court render the person who turned him in make him a whistleblower? His advocacy of violence in the early years of his activism and during the early years of his imprisonment were clearly violations of South African law. What about the little girl who turned in her parents in Soviet Russia for criticizing Stalin? They were duly convicted by a Soviet court and sent to the Gulag.
I recognize that I am resorting to reducto ad absurdum examples here, but I'm just trying to make the point that we aren't including people on that list just because the behavior they reported was illegal, but because it was "immoral". And immoral is an intrinsically value laden judgment. You cannot have a "reliable source" for a value judgment, because values are not facts, they are just values.
I'll withdraw the proposal if I can figure out how to do it. But I'd appreciate hearing your response before I do so. Thank you for engaging in a respectful manner, and for your apology, which was not really necessary. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For point #1, Wikipedia has tons of articles on subjects that are controversial. We can't just go around deleting everything that people have disagreements over. As for point number #2, the easy way around the problems raised is to require people to find reliable sources that call the figures listed whistleblowers. Just reflect what the sources state and nothing more and NPOV won't be a problem.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this proposal is going nowhere, but your comment isn't responsive. As I've stated below, there are no "reliable sources" for value judgments. And if you just want to include people because someone called them a whistleblower, then the title of the article should be "List of People that Have Been Called Whistleblowers". Formerly 98 (talk) 01:26, 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 Keep.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Williams (architect)[edit]

Louis Williams (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single source for supporting notability valereee (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs love, but this search in the online archive of Australian newspapers bears out his prominence in eclesiastical architecture in his time - church after church, many of them major. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, seems to have been a pretty notable architect with a string of notable buildings to his credit. The reason given by the nominator isn't really sufficient for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Hunt[edit]

Daniel J. Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of notability valereee (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject was apparently just elected a state representative in a special election on April 1. I am looking for a reliable news source to confirm this before I vote to keep. If confirmed, Dan Hunt passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets Part 1 of WP:POLITICIAN, which deems state legislators and "persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them" as notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep per the above reasons. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:30, 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 keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Hill (lacrosse player)[edit]

Clay Hill (lacrosse player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot really find any sources that detail his life other than a couple of refs. This article has existed since 2008 with hardly any updates. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 18:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw. Simply south ...... discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years 10:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Professional athlete at the elite level of his sport. Played almost every game for the Buffalo Bandits, a fully professional club in the National Lacrosse League for seven full seasons [2] where he won the 2008 NLL Championship. An AfD seems extremely premature and a little overboard. Why did you not put an "expand" or "sources" template on the article? I did a google search for "Clay Hill lacrosse" and "Clay Hill Buffalo Bandits" and see more than enough to establish him as a notable athlete. DMighton (talk) 02:31, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Fryderyk Frontier[edit]

Disappearance of Fryderyk Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While his disappearance briefly made the news, there's no evidence that this disappearance was a notable one in any way. StarM 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only briefly newsworthy, no notability. --Dmol (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 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 close - wrong venue. Not an article - feel free to take this to WP:MFD. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkin' Donuts/Sandbox[edit]

Dunkin' Donuts/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

abandoned subpage, now out of date. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was a sandbox where one or more editors were testing some changes for some reason. Why not follow the directions at the page: "This is the sandbox of Dunkin' Donuts/Sandbox. A sandbox is a subpage of a template or article used to test a change to the main article or template before deploying said changes. Once you have finished with the test, please erase the contents of this page leaving this box (Sandbox notice) in place." Why not just do that? And, have the editor(s) been contacted? No reason to delete is really suggested. --doncram 22:07, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Munyaradzi Diya[edit]

Munyaradzi Diya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article's creator I have added several references to show that he has played in a Pro League of which he helped his team Highlanders F.C. to second place finish in 2013.CrossTemple Jay 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a league is in the non-western world, we need to recognize that the conversation is going to be in different places, and off different level of sources to create notability. This looks like WP:Systematic bias problems. And +1 to Crosstemplejay's reasoning, Sadads (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments above are entirely incorrect. @Crosstemplejay: you may wish to refamiliarise yourself with WP:NFOOTY, the Malian league may contain profesisonal clubs, but there is no current consensus that it is a FULLY professional league. You are of course welcome to start a discussion at WT:FOOTY if you believe you have sources that indicate that it is. @Sadads: you may wish to reconsider your whole opinion or at least provide some evidence for your claim of systematic bias. At the moment, you just look boorish. Geographic locale has no impact on GNG whatsoever.
Moreover, despite the inference of the article, this, this, this, this and this all indicate he was an unused substitute in all matches in the 2014 African Nations Championship. Additionally National Football Teams have no record of a player by that name having been capped and so he appears to fail WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not changing position, this has been an endemic problem with AfDs for sports leagues and player articles that I have run into: teams or players at a level that would meet notability in the United States or Europe because of GNG coverage requirements, don't in other locations because of our English communities overzealous reliance on 1) Western governed international ranking systems and 2) reliable source materials, which are not produced in as large a quantity in developing countries, in as many accessible western languages on the internet. We have endemic problems in regards to coverage of non-Western public peoples, and I am reminded in these discussions how Wikipedia is perpetuating media imperialism. Sadads (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's see some examples where such events have occured against consensus. Your unsupported rhetoric is as tiring as it is groundless. To refute your point quite readily, one only has to look at WP:FPL for a long list of non US / non-European leagues where there is consensus that the league is fully professional and therefore that players are generally considered notable. There are 38 of them. There are 33 US / European leagues confirmed as fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To delete articles of top players in such non-western countries would show WP:BIAS and systemic racism. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 - you know full well the definition of FULLY professional leagues. Partially professional or those where FPL consensus is lacking are not deemed sufficient for NFOOTY. Mali is not on that list. For the millionth time, if you believe you have evidence to indicate Mali as an FPL, please present it for dicsussion at WT:FOOTY.
2 - Regardless of this, could you please show some significant reliable sources that would indicate GNG?
3 - Are you actually accusing other editors of racism, I would recommend you retract that statement or provide some evidence to back it up.
4 - Do you have any idea how patronising your comment about "inmpoverished" nations sounds? I can't believe that based on some strange subjective view of the wealth / standing of a nation you are seriously suggesting WP should have lower GNG standards?!?
5 - Not only is it patronising, it is also inherently self-contradictory, you throw unfounded accusations of bias around (again!), but in the same breath indicate you believe we should be biased against some nations by having a lower notability threshold. Fenix down (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fenix down Whatever we've done in the past, doesn't meant that this isn't WP:BIAS and systemic racism. And where have I ever accused any individual editor of racism? Do you understand what systemic means? Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – playing in a top level league is not valid rationale for having an article, many top European leagues are not fully professional, and playing in them does not indicate sufficient notability. Comparing the Mali league to the German one for example is not a valid comparison. Perhaps it is at a similar level to the Irish league, players of which are not assumed automatically notable unless the WP:GNG is met. No keep arguments demonstrate that. C679 04:33, 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 speedily deleted: CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhipita[edit]

Dhipita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao[edit]

Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe not notable as an academic, but clearly meets general notability guidelines as an author and pundit. Plenty of sources, several of them cited, have discussed and quoted him. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, he fails WP:AUTHOR as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact a search for his name brings up only 40 hits. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of those are RS. Actually discuss him, or are even him? I do not think he writes on Fighting Cancer: A Nontoxic Approach to Treatment which is on the page you linked to. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them seem to be this Ramesh, not all. He obviously writes a lot about Hindutva, and his views get discussed a fair bit by people who agree or disagree with them. Google images gives links to pages that carry his picture - the guy with the beard. "Closepet N. Ramesh" gives some more results. There are various bio-type blurbs like this one or this one. A notable pundit. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an academic and an author whose works are notable and he is also an awardee of the Kulapati Munshi Award. He also held the position of Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre, which is definitely a notable academic position in a university. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for the award? I cannot find one? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he is Professor of Communication only, not theatre, and he is not chair of that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Xxanthippe. Even if he were chair, that still is not enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets notability criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 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 Keep. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping this article (although this does not mean that a merger is impossible). At least one delete !vote gives rationale more in line with a merge !vote, and another delete !vote is not being considered as AFD is not for cleanup. Of the keep !votes considered (i.e. not simply "it's notable"), several emphasise the NYT's lengthy article on the subject (which would speak for notability), either explicitly or implicitly. Another mentioned that Obama has responded to this speech, which points towards greater notability.

Again, this does not mean a merge is impossible, and if a merger is desired discussion can continue at the article's talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean speech of Vladimir Putin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crimean speech of Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, difficult to read, largely based on a single primary source, and an orphan. The contents of this speech can be adequately summarized in articles like Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation and 2014 Crimean crisis. There just isn't a need for a separate article just for Putin's speech. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a highly notable speech and shortcomings in the current version of the article are not legitimate reasons for deletion. The New York Times published a 32 paragraph article about the speech, called Putin Reclaims Crimea for Russia and Bitterly Denounces the West, involving contributions by ten reporters. They hosted the entire speech on their website. Dozens or hundreds of reliable news sources world wide gave this speech in-depth attention, and I am certain that when history books about the Crimean crisis are written, this speech will be a major focus of that coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why make a separate article for the speech when it can be put as a section within the Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation page? Limestoneforest (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The reason why we should keep this article, Limestoneforest, is that the speech itself is independently notable, because of significant coverage of the speech by reliable, independent sources. Consider this: we have 45 articles about State of the Union addresses by U.S. presidents. We have 18 articles about speeches by Barack Obama, and I was the major contributor to one of those articles. We have many articles about notable speeches by many world leaders. Why shouldn't we also have an article about a highly notable speech by the current president of Russia? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aside from the standard OTHERSTUFFEXIST rebuttal, I'm unconvinced that just because the speech has received significant coverage (however that is defined) it deserves a separate Wikipedia page. For example you could argue that a speech by Barack Obama to the Clinton Global Initiative received significant coverage but that speech is a sub-section of the "Speeches of Barack Obama" page. A much better reason to create a separate page for Putin's speech is if it is too cumbersome to describe the events of Putin's speech (and not just the content of Putin's speech) within the [[Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation|accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation Wikipage, but the problem then is that it is too early to describe the totality of everything that has happened in the aftermath of Putin's speech given its recentism. Moreover, even if we do have a picture of the totality of everything that has happened, it is unclear why we cannot just sum up everything that has happened as a sub-section of the "accession" article. I'm not against having his speech as a separate Wikipedia page, but at this point, it is too early for it to warrant having a separate Wikipedia page.Limestoneforest (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The other stuff exists essay is a double edged sword, Limestoneforest. Experienced editors certainly agree that we should not keep a new crappy article about a non-notable topic just because someone manages to find other similar crappy articles about non-notable topics among our 4.4 million articles. Instead, we should delete all of those articles. But in the case of this specific topic - a speech by the president of a major world power which has received significant coverage, when we have many such well-referenced, in depth articles about such notable speeches, then otherstuffexists is an argument in favor of keeping this article. And as for what "significant coverage" is, who would be bold enough to argue that 32 paragraphs in the New York Times devoted to this speech as a specific topic, as well as a superabundance of similar coverage in reliable sources worldwide, does not constitute significant coverage? As for "recentism", that is intended to screen out trivial topics of fleeting interest. It should be clear to anyone who understands the basics of international affairs that the Crimean crisis is of enduring historical interest, and should be addressed by a body of quite a few linked and interrelated articles here on Wikipedia. In my judgment, an article about this speech should be among them, as students of this crisis in the future will most certainly be interested in this specific speech. By the way, I encourage you to write a freestanding article about Obama's 2012 speech to the Clinton Global Initiative if it received coverage comparable to this speech. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • ReplyBut you still haven't established why Putin's speech should warrant an separate Wikipedia page. I'm not denying that the speech is significant, but in order to have an independent Wikipedia page for the speech, you'd have to establish the independent significance of the speech and not just its significance. That is difficult to do since the content of Putin's speech is, in essence, a justification of Crimea's accession into the Russian Federation and thus means that the significance of Putin's speech is dependent on the significance of event (Crimea's accession into the Russian federation) that motivated Putin's speech. Even if I grant you your requirement of 'independent notability' (which is whether the main subject of the Wikipedia page has significant coverage by reliable, independent sources), those sources should, at a minimum, make explicitly clear what it is about the notability of the historical event/person that warrants in-depth coverage and based on what I've read, the only thing that is notable about it is that it provided a justification from Crimea's accession into the Russian federation...which begs the question why his speech can't just be included a a sub-section of the Crimea accession Wikipedia page. In addition to the significance issue, there is the issue of the written material of the current article. As it stands, a vast majority of the article is a summary of Putin's speech when (and as user Yulia Romero points out) it isn't clear why it shouldn't just be treated as a Wikisource document. Moreover, given the underdeveloped section of the article documenting the response of Putin's Crimea speech, perhaps you are over-stating the significance of his speech.Limestoneforest (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speech on Crimea has been covered in quite a few news sources. Most notably, Obama gave a speech in part rebuking some of the points made by Putin in this speech [3]. I don't think that straight out deletion is desirable. I would suggest either merging the page, or if enough sources can be found renaming it to something like Statements of Vladimir Putin on the Crimean Crisis .Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes indeed -- as I noted, it seems easy enough to summarize the salient points of this speech in the myriad other articles on this ongoing situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or Merge; I definitely don't think it should be deleted. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't see a relevant deletion rationale. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article is now just an almost complete overview of what was said without much background. In its current form it belongs more in Wikisource. More summarizing of what was said needs to be done to make it look like a proper Wikipedia article rather then a primary source. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The speech was notable, it was a major speech that detailed new policies, and significantly more broad and important than GW Bush's "Chicken Kiev Speech" which has its own page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech. Needing to be improved is not a reason to delete and entry. The entry probably could use some context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs) 11:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Frankly, while there are a couple exceptions, too much of the discussion here entirely avoids making signficant policy-based arguments. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any indication that this speech is independently notable enough to justify an article separate from Vladimir Putin or the Crimean Crisis. Orser67 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep article, as the content seems notable. But it should be improved though.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cullen, et al. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that we have newspaper stories which say "Putin made a speech" does not constitute "significant coverage" and hence the article fails to meet notability guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as was a notable speech. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, Preferably Merge into Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation or 2014 Crimean Crisis - notability is obvious, and I really think the subject itself is worth being kept - but is this one particular address made by Putin worthy enough of an entire article? Should we then also retain articles on each speech that every national leader has made, each address that say, Obama or Angela Merkel have given (because surely there are many of those that gain almost equal coverage in corresponding media outlets)? Either way, to me, a merge seems like the most reasonable option - the ideas would be more fit as a section of an article about the topic Putin was discussing. If these options are not possible, then keep. Flipandflopped (talk) 23:45, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Harf[edit]

Marie Harf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable low level member of the State Department lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article on a low-level government officer that has the added disadvantage of engaging in really bad violations of rules about NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 13 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alif the First Letter of knowledge[edit]

Alif the First Letter of knowledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). Proposed deletion declined without comment. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:16, 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 redirect. I have targeted the redirect to Ultraviolence (album), considering that is the common outcome for non-notable singles. A few editors below have pointed out that the album itself also has a questionable claim to notability. If the standalone album article is ever redirected or deleted in the future, this redirect can be retargeted to the artist article appropriately. (non-admin closure) Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast (Lana Del Rey song)[edit]

West Coast (Lana Del Rey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This single has not been released yet, a release date has not even been announced yet. Everything in the article except for the sentence "On April 3, 2014, Del Rey announced that the lead single of the record was entitled "West Coast"." is unsourced and pure speculation. This song is not noteworthy enough for its own article (yet). Littlecarmen (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 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 keep. no evidence the nominator used WP:BEFORE. Secret account 13:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Cooper (philosopher)[edit]

John M. Cooper (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROFESSOR. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:PROFESSOR says that a professor is notable if they "hold or has held a named chair appointment". Named, as in like the "Henry Putnam University Professor of Philosophy". WP:PROFESSOR also says that a professor is notable if they have "received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Like, say, giving the John Locke Lectures which this 'umble encyclopedia says are "one of the world's most prestigious academic lecture series". Given these two facts are included clearly in the article, I do find it rather strange that the article has been nominated for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Quirpon[edit]

Radio Quirpon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once more media covers this would that help? Or perhaps it should be a stub? ohegarty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohegarty (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohegarty: Whether stub or C/B/Good/Featured articles, notability must be established. And neither one nor two, but multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RELIABLE sources with substantial coverage. Radio station was launched on April 5, today. It actually is WP:TOOSOON to create an article on it. You may wish to keep it in your userspace till it receives significant coverage in multiple sources.
  • Delete. A search comes up with no coverage in reliable sources for this station; does not appear to meet WP:GNG at this time.  Gongshow   talk 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our notability rules for media extend a presumption of notability to CRTC-licensed AM or FM radio stations — they do not extend any automatic "just because it exists" notability to Internet radio services. For those, you need a much higher degree of reliable source coverage than the exactly none that's been provided here (the "sources" are all primary.) So no, NMEDIA does not cover this, and it should not be a stub. It's certainly possible that the volume of coverage that Radio Quirpon gets will increase in the future, and it will qualify for an article if and when that happens — but right now, it should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 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 (nomination withdrawn [6]) (Non-admin closure). — sparklism hey! 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Man[edit]

Only Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proof that this really was a single (instead of an album track). No proof that it ever charted anywhere. As sources given are about the album or the remixes. The Banner talk 12:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect (or merge) to the parent album, Higher Than the Eiffel, as a plausible search term (single by a notable band). Though the song charted, coverage for it in reliable sources is rather thin (and consists solely of brief/trivial mentions) and can be easily incorporated into the album article. There's probably more potential for a standalone article on their earlier hit, "We Don't Care", as I found a couple reviews of that single.  Gongshow   talk 16:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Edit: keep per additions to article.  Gongshow   talk 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or at a minimum, merge with Higher Than the Eiffel) - I have recently expanded the article, adding references showing that "Only Man" won the 2010 UK Music Video Awards for "Best Visual Effects" in a Video in association with BEAM and that the song peaked at No.44 on the UK Singles Chart. I have also added a track listing, indicated where versions of the song have been used and transcluded a review from Lizz Paige of Future Radio. For seven days, I listed a section about this article for splitting off, and I did not get any response. Since I added this myself, I split it off into an article. If we were to merge it, it would be one long article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have notified several individuals who have taken part in writing Audio Bullys. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article contains song-specific commentary, information about the award-winning video, and detailed discographic info. All of this content would fit awkwardly at best into the album article. I really don't know why this was nominated for deletion. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should check the version of the article that I nominated. That version gave no mention or proof that it made the charts. That version, and the emergency edits Jax made later, are typical for the rather sloppy way he writes the articles. he often writes "place fillers" to protect his, just as sloppy written, templates instead of articles. The Banner talk 10:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article includes a number of reliable sources. It is about a single that has gained notability including presence on the official UK Singles Chart, and has connections to winning a significant award for its music video. The recent expansion, which has included more decent sources, easily tips the balance for this to be retained. Also, there is no question about the recording ensemble's own notability. A merge, in my view, would leave the 'host' article top heavy, and to have imbalance. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the evidence is there that the single barely made the charts (2 weeks, highest place 44) I request speedy closure as keep, as nominator. The Banner talk 10:29, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music Eyz Awards[edit]

Music Eyz Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline A7/prod. I would argue that the (albeit unsourced) claim 'the UK's fastest growing independent music site' is an indication of significance. Launchballer 12:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambara Wikipedia[edit]

Bambara Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like an advert,plus lack of sources claiming notability. TheChampionMan1234 10:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "written like an advert"? (I just removed "the free online encyclopedia") All of the information comes from Andrew Lih's book on Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked into this online. While there is a Bambara language with possibly 4 million speakers, there may not be an official Bambara Wikipedia. What is there is very barebones. If the proponents of this version want to pursue this, they must go through proper channels. I urge them to do this, as any language with a certain number of speakers should have the right to have their own Wikipedia version. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bambara Wikipedia is bare bones but it... indeed exists and has existed. It's not in an incubator. The reference I used documents that it exists (unfortunately I don't think the text is available as a preview on Google Books). What I will concede is that so far Andrew Lih's book is the only secondary source here. Kasper Souren, who started this Wikipedia, made an update on his blog http://guaka.org/2008/06/24/200-articles-in-the-bambara-wikipedia but this is published by him, so it's a primary source. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page on the Harvard Law School website by Kevin Discroll that talks about the Bambara Wikipedia: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/driscoll/2005/04/27/ - but I don't know if this also counts as a primary source and whether it is usable.
Kasper Souren discusses the "one year later" here on Wikimania: http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:KS2 (this would be primary)
WhisperToMe (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will change my vote to keep, because I found my universal logon got me there. However, I have run into places claiming to be Wikipedia that are in no way associated with it. I think part of the confusion is how other languages appear in Wikipedia main pages. They are in their language and it is difficult to find some of them if you do not know how they are pronounced or spelled. Bill Pollard (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpollard: - For future reference, there's a complete [official] list at the meta wiki here: meta:List of Wikipedias. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I copied this link to my sandbox. This will make it easier in the future to determine whether a system is a part of Wikipedia. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found significant coverage in an article written by Noam Cohen of The New York Times. I also found a 2013 journal article that briefly discusses the state of the Bambara Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is discussed at length in Lih's book, which is probably enough to satisfy the GNG. Add that to Cohen's NYT article, which does discuss this Wikipedia at length, and I don't think there's any question but that the Wikipedia meets the GNG. I'd also like to note explicitly that, contra nom's statement, "lack of sources claiming notability" is not a deletion criterion. Lack of existence of sources establishing notability is one, but the sources don't need to "claim" notability. Their existence is part of what establishes notability. I'm thinking nom has this confused with some CSD, but perhaps not. Also, "written like an advert" is definitely not a deletion criterion. Not in any way whatsoever.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - (edit conflict) Well, it's certainly lacking sources. How often is notability considered to be established (such that an article is merited) after a good faith search yields only two? All of the coverage furthermore seems to stem from a single event: Souren/Geekcorps and the $1 per article competition/promotion. I don't think many of us would be fighting for keeping this article if it were about some little for-profit tech startup for which only two reliable sources could be found, both of which talked about the company for one particular promotion. For those reasons it feels a little hypocritical to !vote keep. Nonetheless, a weak keep from me: (a) the two sources are solid; (b) there are some other weaker sources out there, like a few hits on Ethan Zuckerman's blog (who is connected to Geekcorps); and (c) there's good reason to believe there are a number of reliable non-English sources out there given the involvement of multiple notable organizations. I've left a message for Guaka hoping he may be able to provide additional refs. --— Rhododendrites talk |  19:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT ok? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/arts/26wiki.html?pagewanted=print Guaka (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding it! It is one of the sources already used. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have a precedent for articles on other Wiki versions, so I believe it would be an example of our systematic bias if we were to get rid of this one.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 15 March 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Mobile[edit]

Camp Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 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 No consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Varma[edit]

Kalyan Varma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references are dead. The existing links doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines JK (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question / comment: None of the links seems to be marked as dead. Did you look for them within web.archive.org? ¶ He's got this at the Natural History Museum website, an interview in something called the Economic Times, a long interview in something called 6bridges, more. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. One interview in the Economic Times Business doesn't make someone notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:51, 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, → Call me Hahc21 05:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's an award-winning person, having earned National History Museum Wildlife Photographer of the Year (per Hoary). Now, the references section needs some SERIOUS work because just putting the article link is not acceptable, and a few dead links should be fixed. But the article needs work, not deletion. GRUcrule (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that the sources listed by User:Hoary above are quite sufficient to push this past the WP:GNG, in that they are independent and substantial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the awards appear to have got him in depth independent coverage in muliple sources. Maybe because the awards aren't that big a deal; I'm really not sure. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:02, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie2988[edit]

Boogie2988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7 Speedy, YouTube celeb 1.75mil subs Tawker (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails to establish notability. Changing this to neutral for now. Article has some references; however, I would feel more comfortable with a few more non-YouTube items. reddogsix (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 29 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, Tawker (talk) 07:16, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ressha Sentai ToQger vs. Kamen Rider Gaim: Spring Break Combined Special[edit]

Ressha Sentai ToQger vs. Kamen Rider Gaim: Spring Break Combined Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was broadcast and it did happen but this article is just a massive plot summary with no evidence of it being notable on its own. This is already dutifully covered (and excessively but I can't convince people to write less and I'm just as guilty some times) at List of Ressha Sentai ToQger episodes and List of Kamen Rider Gaim episodes. I have attempted to convince one user who is adamant about its retention despite multiple users having reverted his repeated restorations of this page to its massive and multi-guideline violating state. He has even attempted to deny me access to his page as if I was a bot.

I will note that there is a version on the Japanese Wikipedia, but it's a one sentence plot summary accompanying voluminous descriptions of the dramatis personae. Our version of the article should be deleted, because there is no suitable redirect target due to the nature of this "crossover" TV special, and also because the expanding authors just copied content directly from the two episode list articles without acknowleding that fact. Regarding notability, again, there are two references to Anime News Network (as well as two references to the official plot summaries), but both are reporting on information from two websites that are most definitely not reliable sources.

To sum it up, this happened, but it is definitely not independently notable. The only reason it seems a separate page is wanted is because it is a crossover and one user feels that the coverage on the separate episode lists is not good enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 07:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of some massive re-listing fest that happens with these AFDs that no one feels like touching with a 10 foot pole can we just close it as if it was a proposed deletion instead of letting this crap article languish for another two weeks?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And is this all that happens? It just gets categorized into every fucking WikiProject Deletion sorting list that people think it can fit in? I should have just sent it to WP:PROD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't even been a day, get a grip. Anyway, support per nom. Whisternefet 01:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but I see this happen over and over. It just gets relisted for 3 weeks because no one gives a shit and then someone finally says "Keep" on the 3rd week" when it could have been nuked from orbit via PROD already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the process of relisting is supposed to help get it more attention from other WikiProjects? I know I've been slow-going around here lately because of this crummy redesign, but maybe that's just me, heh. Plus, you could just it PROD afterwards if this truly goes nowhere. Whisternefet (t · c) 07:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding of policy that once something is sent to AFD and it survives, it cannot be sent to PROD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sourced perfectly. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. There are two sources that refer to the announcement coming from ANN that are sourced back to two different fan blogs. That's not "perfectly". And it's all plot and there's nothing else that can be said about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why was this page created? A short plotsum is perfectly fine in the ToQger and Gaim lists. We do not need to give "special episodes" special treatment. —KirtZMail 07:46, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Selection/Thailand XI[edit]

Thailand Selection/Thailand XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable exhibition football, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Team appears to have played enough games to probably have some significant level of coverage in Thai sources, but I'm not able to find anything myself. Happy to change if sources can be shown. Inherent WP:NOTSTATS issues remain, however. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 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 : Speedy deleted as a re-creation of Autosodomy, previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosodomy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auto sodomy[edit]

Auto sodomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable. No sources are given, although the page presents the topic well, however. Should have a full AfD, it is not verifiable, as I already said. 123chess456 (talk) 06:18, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national under-14 football team[edit]

Thailand national under-14 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

U-14 national team in non-notable - Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current consensus is U-14 teams are non-notable. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFC U-14 Championship[edit]

AFC U-14 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. U-14 football is non-notable and fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

2001 Asian U-14 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I think this tournament is held by AFC, which is important for the development of Asian football, and it had already set up by AFC, so I think it should be remained.Younis7435
Comment - please provide reference to guidelines to support your opinion. Fenix down (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 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 : the consensus is to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Silaeva[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nina Silaeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant self-promotion by a non-notable artist. Ghirla-трёп- 17:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Plainly a working and exhibiting artist, but insufficient evidence of WP:ARTIST notability. (BTW my AV flagged several payload threats when I was checking the given press links.) AllyD (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An artist? Yeah. A notable artist? I don't really think so. Stalwart111 12:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm all about more women artists on Wikipedia, but alas, she fails ARTIST per AllyD! SarahStierch (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think this should be forwarded to the Russian wiki page.Unsung Artists (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable artist. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:15, 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 delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1337 Gallery[edit]

1337 Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any reliable sources covering this studio or the game. Delete per WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following articles:

Soul Survivor (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chet (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Webtastic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Odie5533 (talk) 18:00, 29 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) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All sources seem to be primary sources, no secondary reliable sources. Not notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 4 articles - software developer and 3 programs from that developer, all lacking significant coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:22, 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 No consensus.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Baker (shogi)[edit]

Alan Baker (shogi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure if this person satisfies WP:N WP:BIO. Baker is referred to as a university professor, yet his notability seems to only come from his shogi playing exploits. A recent edit to the page says that Baker is an American Philosopher, yet there is nothing in the article related to his achievements as a philosopher. There are no mentions made of any books or articles he may have published. Nothing about any research projects, etc. he may have been involved in. No lists of awards or other types of recognition he may have received. No mentions of any memberships in professional societies. The fact that he started a shogi club, won a few tournaments and was rated as high a 19 on some shogi organization's rating list is not, in my opinion, sufficient enough to establish notabilty. There are lots of amateur shogi, chess, go, etc. players who are also probably pretty good at their chosen game and may have even won tournaments. How many of them have their own Wikipedia pages? Moreover, the sources cited to establish this notability are for a Swarthmore College webpage (Shogi and me) that no longer exists and, judging from the title, does also seem be primarily about Baker the shogi player; a profile page on a shogi organization's website that just gives his name and shows that he has played only 34 shogi games over the past 14 years (which does not seem very active); a website in Russian which appears to be a recap of a tournament that Baker played in and took 3rd place; and a rating list of shogi players in which Baker is one of 995 other players listed. All true for sure, but not very notable, especially when it comes to WP:SIGCOV

In addition to the above, there is the possibility that the article is nothing more than self-promotion. It has been edited three times by an editor named Alanshogi whose only edits have been to an article about a shogi player named Alan. If these two people are one and the same, then this would seem to be contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:PROMO- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He is an active researcher with a Google scholar profile here and cv here. This is a low-citation field so it's difficult to tell how significant he is as a philosopher just from the numbers. But given that the article is almost entirely about his connection to Shogi, that seems a more promising direction to look for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Thanks for finding the GS info which I tried to find myself but failed. I am inclined to a weak keep on the basis of citations in this low cited field. I have no idea about shogi. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
 Comment: I'm not really sure if the GS info is relevant to establishing notability for a page titled Alan Baker (shogi), but if it is, then that is, in my opinion, where the main focus should be, and not shogi. Maybe the name could be changed to Alan Baker (philosopher)? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of (more active) chess and board game players with higher rankings that do not have Wiki pages. This seems to be self promotion. AndyGibsonSon (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article is for the purposes of academia and his professorhip, it needs to be completely rewritten. If the article is for the purpose of Shogi dealings, it is non-notable. Like Marchjuly and AndyGibsonSon have mentioned, there are thousands more players that are more notable. A Shogi template of wins/losses might be used to further Shogi tournament wins in the future, but even in that case this is a non-notable person. Kbabej (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Struck sockpuppetry. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 24 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable for shogi. Can't really tell if his academic record is notable or not, but that's not the focus of the article. Burden of proof is on those claiming notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We shouldn't nominate articles for deletion on valid noteworthy topics simply due to weaknesses in the article's current state. I agree that someone who is an expert Shogi player, who merely happens to be a professor, is unlikely to be notable. But I am concerned that Alan Baker may be a notable academic, and I would feel a lot more comfortable if nominator had shown they had complied with WP:BEFORE. Would the NYTimes have used questions from one of his exams in their pop quiz column if he was a nobody? Geo Swan (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't have much experience with h-index's in this field, but looking through three of the references to Baker I was able to pull up in Highbeam, I found a 1-paragraph review of "Are there Genuine Mathematical Explanations of Physical Phenomena", in the Review of Metaphysics in 2005, a passing reference in the same journal in 2010 that suggests a piece is "defending its theses over objections by so-and-so and Alan Baker", and another one paragraph reviefw in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. I don't have deep JSTOR access, but this review [7] appears to be a peer-reviewed paper whose entire point is arguing against one of Baker's arguments. This all starts to get at GNG by itself, but just as importanlty, it gives me (a) the sense that Baker is a non-trivial part of the conversation of his feild, and (b) hope that there is enough material that a knowledgable editor could write a neutral and not entirely trivial biography from it. I do think academic work should probably be the focus. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:35, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sea change (transformation)[edit]

Sea change (transformation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source is OED. No sources found discussing the term. Clearly WP:DICDEF. Deprodded as supposedly "controversial", but I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Some sources:
 – NorthAmerica1000 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Struck the last source above, not enough depth-of-coverage). NorthAmerica1000 21:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More sources that directly discuss Shakespeare's use of the term:
 – NorthAmerica1000 22:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of those are sources relating to Seachange (demography) - the idea expanded from the concept of moving from the city to the coast for a change of lifestyle. That concept has implications for telecommuting, demographic shifts, socio-economic imbalance, etc. It includes a not about the concept's relation to the television show mentioned (I think). Stalwart111 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you added a couple of those while I was typing and it didn't edit-conflict. Yeah, there's some Shakespeare stuff there but is there enough to justify an article? Some seem to merge the demographic sea change with the Shakespearean concept of seachange. Maybe there's a place for both to ensure both are properly covered? Don't know. FYI, two of those sources are the same book reprinted under a different title (same author). Stalwart111 21:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These two sources are from the same author (McMillan), but the content is not entirely duplicative: [8], [9]. Notice how the second one (Complexity, Organizations and Change) expounds upon the concept to include Dale's 1994 definition of a sea change, whereas the first one does not. NorthAmerica1000 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, yeah, but then we can probably just use the expanded one - the other then doesn't add much, right? Either way, there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of the term in the Shakespearean sense - multiple reliable sources seem to have their own interpretation of what he meant and use it to mean "transformation" or "metamorphosis" or "broad change" or something else. That's fine, of course, but it doesn't provide much beyond a dictionary definition. There doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth analysis of the term itself. More "this is what this means and this is how it applies to computers/organisational management/social change/etc". I'm really on the fence. I think there's a place for the article because it gives people a proper sense of where the phrase comes from. It has since been bastardised into a bunch of different contexts, thus Sea change (the disambiguation page). Few of those seem to relate to the "Shakespearean" definition so there is some value in providing some historical context. But the disparate interpretations in sources (with no real literary analysis) makes crafting a proper article difficult. I think the best source provided (in terms of analysis) is The Absent Shakespeare so nice work finding that one. I'm probably at weak keep at the moment. Stalwart111 23:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the Seachange (demography) article, there is exactly one sentence in the lead that states Shakespeare's use of the term. Compared to the depth of coverage in many of the sources above, I disagree that the amount in the demography article is adequate. The rest of the article focuses upon the demographic use of the term. NorthAmerica1000 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another source, from The New York Times:
  • Safire, William (February 13, 1994). "ON LANGUAGE; Downsize That Special Sea Change". The New York Times. Retrieved 17 March 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
 – NorthAmerica1000 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 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 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sea change. In its current state, this falls far afoul of WP:NOTDICT - it can be adequately covered at the dab page. ansh666 06:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ogasawara Shōsai[edit]

Ogasawara Shōsai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP prod that was previously in place was declined by another user because the subject is not living. The subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches in Google Books and news searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [10]). NorthAmerica1000 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As I mentioned to the person who placed the BLP prod on the article, I think [11] is the Japanese Wikipedia page for him (but it is hard to tell for sure, since I'm using Google Translate, and it doesn't do a good job translating Japanese). I think it would require someone fluent in Japanese searching Japanese sources to tell if he is notable or not. Calathan (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Japanese wikipedia page has a different title because his real name was Ogasawara Hidekiyo, with Shōsai being just his common name. The Japanese page is relatively well sourced for a Japanese wikipedia page, though most of them are print, not internet sources. This one from the Kumamoto Prefecture is useful, however: [12]. It also seems he has been a somewhat popular figure in pop culture, appearing as a character in a number of novels and films like Samurai Reincarnation. I've seen this with AfDs for Japanese medieval figures, but unfortunately there's not a lot of RS about such people on the net: to avoid a bias towards the net and really find out what historians think of their notability, you have to go to print sources, especially in Japanese. I can do that in a few days, but not now.Michitaro (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of solid sourcing or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how the notability criteria are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This was a bit hard to decide. I checked reference books in the library and, while a few mention him, none had entries devoted to him. But clearly he is often mentioned in Japanese books, as evidenced by the Google Books search [13]. I think this is because he remains notable today less because of the actual historical figure, than because of the narrative he was involved in—the killing of Hosokawa Gracia on her request when, as a Christian, she could not commit suicide—which has become the source for many non-fiction and fictional accounts. The Kumamoto page is an RS ([14]), but much of what else you find are more narrativized, in works by famous authors such as Ryunosuke Akutagawa [15], Ryotaro Shiba [16], Eiji Yoshikawa [17], etc. He also appears as a character in film and television, played by such well-known actors as Kyusaku Shimada [18]. I thought about the argument that perhaps he is notable only for one event (WP:BIO1E), but even that allows pages for people with major roles in events (whether this is a major event or not is debatable, but clearly it has often been retold).It's hard to judge whether all this is "significant," but in the end, I think it is significant/notable that he remains alive in the popular imagination 400 years after his death. Michitaro (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Michitaro's analysis. Defer to the expert here. --doncram 02:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a key player in mythologised historical event. Alternatively merge and redirect to a section in Hosokawa Gracia. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:56, 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. Due to a lack of participation, I am treating this as (essentially) an uncontested PROD.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Swade[edit]

Josh Swade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Some reasonable coverage about a film he produced, but not much about him as a person. SmartSE (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 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 02:37, 25 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 02:00, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NTDEC[edit]

NTDEC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than some news items about the lawsuit, like the one in New York Times back in 1993, and the six-in-one cartridge, the company doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion - there doesn't seem to be any other substantial coverage on the court case. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The company is rather famous and notable in that, along with many (like Bit Corporation or Thin Chen Enterprise), made at that time the history of the gaming industry in Taiwan. NTDEC is still active today but under the new name of Asder, also no longer working in that sector. Luigi1090 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You have something of a point, but while as you said it was established at the time when the Taiwanese video game industry is still in its infancy, there seems to be an apparent lack of definitive info on the firm. Then again I wanted the article to stay up too, given its role and notoriety as one of several companies whom Nintendo hammered for large-scale bootlegging. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Comment - I had searched and controlled all over the web the information about the company (in all languages): they are there but the only real problem is its activity during the "early" '80s, and I refer to those after NTDEC (now Asder) was founded, since they started making games and making piracy in 1988/1989. Luigi1090 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: reasonable amount of coverage; I'm sure that there's more coverage in contemporary newspapers that aren't online. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:00, 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. The consensus is that neither the Greek website nor software warrant an article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MyNotes[edit]

MyNotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Improve This article is poorly written and Again, is not notable. Someone should fix it or get rid of it - Happy_Attack_Dog "How`s my reverting? Call 1-800-U-GOT-BLOCKED" (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom The article has no content, it's just three external links and a sentence repeated twice. Might be worthy of a speedy. Elassint Hi 13:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to this version: [19] about the product which had been the subject of the article from 2006 until it was repurposed to this non-notable Greek website 2 days ago. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would be bold and effect the revert but am not sure of the etiquette while the article is at AfD. It could also be debatable whether the MyNotes product meets WP:NSOFT in its own right. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to let that spam stay up, so I've restored the orginal article, but kept the deletion tag just in case. Elassint Hi 21:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neither the software nor the Greek on-line student community appears to be notable.  Gong show 00:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with User:Gongshow. Even though we have stumbled into an AfD on the software because the page had been repurposed for the Greek website, it highlights the lack of evidence that the software meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Softpedia, the one independent ref, is a download site and not sufficiently reliable to establish notability. A search turns up more download sites, forum posts, and brief blog mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage, as per WP:GNG. If coverage is found and refs add to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 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. Sock !votes have been discounted entirely.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fescal[edit]

Fescal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in any way, looks like a vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not completely un-notable, as I did find this review, but from what I can tell that is the only source available, so WP:NMUSIC is some way from being met. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning toward keep - More research is warranted, and should preferably be delivered by individuals interested in the subject. The ABC references only indicate that the artist's songs were played on air, they don't qualify as "significant coverage" as defined by the general notability guideline. Of the other references, most of them look like blogs, which isn't entirely a nail in the coffin, as "Son of the Bronx" a TV blog is often used here. I've floated this article past WikiProject Music to see if they have any familiarity here. The ABC Radio sources indicate two songs were spun, but not that the songs were "in rotation", as would be one way to establish notability. UPDATE: per due diligence recommended by WP:BEFORE, I searched Google Books and Google news archive. I can't find any mention of the subject there. I'll do a little more looking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Related: We're trying to build an article on Fescal, but it's a pseudonym. The closest we get to the individual to establish any sort of notability, is the cryptic "David S". That's all fine and good, as we all love a touch of anonymity, but it's difficult to establish an individual's notability when we don't have all the facts. In contrast, Banksy is a pseudonym, but there is a stack of references as tall as Herman Munster to help support the individual's notability. A similar mystique surrounds the iconic Los Angeles icon Angelyne, though she too has a litany of press coverage far beyond what is cited in her article. Has the artist Fescal achieved any other fame via his real name, and might that help his notability? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned before that I found out his real name and searched for sources but couldn't find anything useful. (P.s. google news archive is being 'upgraded' and there are no archives at the moment, fortunately I have access to factiva). SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a primary source, which I think is fine for citing his real name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Reluctant Keep. Though we all have our concerns about paid editing, I think there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. The German speakers at the language reference desk indicate the Beat article represents a favorable review. They don't vouch for whether or not the review is part of an advertising supplement or not, but assuming good faith on all involved, I think we should also assume that the print publication is okay. That, coupled with a few of the other resources seem to indicate the subject is notable for "[having] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Obviously, if any or all of those reviews were paid for by the promoters, that would unravel all of this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
either it is or it isn't, if you have proof, please bring it into focus otherwise your comment is not helpful Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Shritwod I picked up on the same thing, and that's why I'm here. Assuming there is no fluff content in the article, once the notability is established, it should probably exist. I am concerned about these blog "reviews", because if a promotional company is so skeevy as to hire editors to fill Wikipedia up with bullshit content that violates our terms of service, I wouldn't put it past these same companies to create their own blogs, fill them up with paid reviews, and use these blog sites in attempts to establish notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conjecturable inconsequentiality formed on the basis of incomplete information because you have not presented to this forum any evidence. The conjectures here are many and varied, and are completely unfounded. It is feared that you offer only unsupported asseverations Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Say what now? "Conjecturable inconsequentiality"? This is a discussion about whether or not an article should be deleted for failing to assert notability, not an investigation into paid editing. "Completely unfounded" is not an apt conclusion, as paid editing DOES occur, and there are squirrely editors who operate in teams to force POV and unnotable subjects into Wikipedia. The fact that you don't know where the evidence is, doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. But that's not even the issue in this discussion--we are discussing straight-up notability. Also, a heads-up, you may wish to remove your extraneous bolded Comments. In AfDs, we typically use these to state a position, either Delete or Keep, or Comment if we haven't arrived at a decision yet. Multiple bolded comments attracts undue attention to your comments, and that may be considered unfavorably by the closing admin as an attempt to inflate your position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not treat my comments with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. To suggest an attempt of inflation is nothing more than a way to elevate yourself by looking down on my editing skills. Simon 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article reads more like a "puff" article than anything else. There's no evidence that any of his tracks have made the charts, and I think you have to be pretty desperate to use "ABC Radio National has aired some of his work" as a claim of notability - numerous people have performed on the BBC, or had their music played there, but that doesn't make them notable, it just means the BBC needed to fill up some airtime. I'm confident that ABC Radio National doesn't have such high standards that simply being broadcast by them is a matter for the history books. RomanSpa (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RomanSpa I was responsible for "some of his work" as the previous version said, "In addition, ABC Radio National has shown support of his work." Obviously that phrasing makes it seem like he is backed/endorsed by ABC Radio National. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With all respect to the policies of Wikipedia I have found that this artists' references to be credible, verifiable and legitimate, and the profile to be notable. Further, the deprecatory attitude along with the assertions placed on this artist are unmeasured and ill-judged. From just a few hours of scouring the net and combing through sites I've found that this artists has been mentioned in Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3.
I will reiterate what I said early in Talk:Fescal that it seems the decision to select this article for deletion was done with haste and without background reading on the subject. If one takes the time to read up on the subject in question, ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) has been cited as a reference, not once, but twice and according the the website he's had 21 minutes 30 of air time (12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network), see here Abstract Shining & Where All Roads Lead. Also, the subject in question has featured in a few magazines (physical and digital). Also, it is much appreciated that Cyphoidbomb is seeking for translation for the German Beat Magazine publication. To mention the Igloo magazine citations, please see here for not one, but 5 publications. I personally would not consider these to be 'a passing mention', perhaps if there was only one article on the artist, but since there are five, this does make me think it's not 'a passing mention' but to provide objective evidence of notability and recognition of his contribution to the genre of ambient-drone music.
Further, I have found 3 more publications on the artist here FLUID RADIO. One article is not about the artists' release, but it makes reference to his style, which tells me that he's notable to some extent if other people refer to his music when reviewing other artists, click here .
Lastly, the notability of the artist falls into criteria 1 as stated here 'Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles' Moreover, in 2012, the artist's album was named by Igloomagazine as one of the Top 15 Ambient/Drone release. Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Hi SimoninIceland.. the article came to my attention while investigating a series of articles that appeared to have been created for profit. The consensus from other editors so far is that most of these articles should be deleted, although each one is considered on its own merits. This article does seem to be developing, so it could well be that notability is established (which would be fine by me). Shritwod (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*The first is a very short review - even shorter than the one I linked to, so not sufficient to meet in-depth requirements or multiple source requirements of WP:BIO.
  • Having some tracks played on a radio station doesn't make a musician notable. NMUSIC #12 would require the show to be about Fescal, not simply playing his tracks.
  • We need sources which demonstrate he is notable, not your interpretation of why he is - the reviews at igloomag and fluid-radio are better than what we have so far, but they're very specialist sources and demonstrate that notability is shaky at best. There are so many music sites and magazines out there, but we shouldn't have an article on every artist who's albums are reviewed. I still think that some coverage in a better known source (or evidence that the sources listed are top-notch for the genre) before we keep the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by Cyphoidbomb "there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND". Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Hi Shritwod & SmartSE, what about Germany's BEAT magazine, Pic 1, Pic 2 and Pic 3 ? and I just found this futuresequence. I also noticed these two places have given coverage Hypnagogue, Loop magazine Chile LINK 1, LINK 2.
Hi Happydit Your response is appreciated, but can you please expound upon why you think the article should be kept? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin should be aware of this ongoing SPI where Happydit is listed. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Smartse, as we know, consensus is formed through discussion, not through voting. This contribution from Happydit is little more than a vote. The user has been invited to expound on why they feel the article should be kept. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With respect to what has been said in this forum and in view of everything discussed there is enough content to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Granted that “There are so many music sites and magazines out there, but we shouldn't have an article on every artist who's albums are reviewed”, but I’ve hear the subject in question’s music on national Radio in Canada, I just wish I could find something to show the community, when I do I’ll be sure to post it here. And if I found out that this is a paid article I'll be sure to change my vote so I look forward to the development of this article." — Popnrock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per RomanSpa. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, and a few short reviews (including that found on BEAT) don't constitute the kind of in-depth coverage required to make up for the lack of chart success and substantial airplay. Ruby Murray 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is enough coverage here to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment The subject satisfies criteria 1 WP:NMUSIC "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've made it clear that you think the references cited satisfy criteria 1, but I still respectfully disagree. Ruby Murray 16:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree with the vilification by folks that has been generated here. I feel there is enough substance, in particular reviews and radio plays to warrant this article preservation as has been mentioned previously to satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BAND. What’s more, I also faintly remember hearing something on BBC 6 about his music in the early hours of the morning, which prompted me to buy his music from Stashed Goods. I tried searching the program playlist but that was about 2 years ago when the producer released an album called ‘Moods & Views’. Incidentally, I’ve been following the websites that have been cited for a number of years as an avid fan; Textura, Fluid Radio, Igloo Magazine, ATTN Magazine are a reliable source, by this I mean (their staff and freelance contributors write the articles, reviews, bios etc so people cannot simply copy and paste content supplied by artists and labels or studios). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiranAN123 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KiranAN123 Vilification? What vilification are you referring to? And I'm curious what else you know about the editorial policies of these sites. Can promoters submit "articles" and reviews to these sites as freelancers? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb, vilification, I mean 'to write about in an abusively disparaging manner', i.e. the comment about ABC National Radio and the artist being desperate. I have read and seen nothing to support these words. How I understand the policies of these sites is that they are swamped by promos but they are very careful about what they published, and publications chosen by editors. I know this from experience because I produce music and have sent all the sites my music and they've not replied to me or even answered my e-mails. Even if promotors were to send press packages to these sites, it's not guaranteed to get even looked at, never mind a mention on their website. Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that all the sites would have the same standard and just accept all promo material thrown their way, it just doesn't make sense. By the way, I found this TOKAFI, which I would say is probably the most reliable source to date (I'm still searching) as this was "established in 2004 by music journalist and copywriter Tobias Fischer, tokafi now has a decade of experience to its credit". TOKAFI History Kiran A.N (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Kiranan123 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, KiranAN123, The ABC Radio links are insufficient to establish notability, as they neither demonstrate "rotation", nor do they mention the subject other than in passing--that is, they do not significantly cover the subject. In that regard, I understand the suggestion that using them is desperate. That's not vilification, that's the general notability guideline. I have switched my position to "Reluctant Keep", and I reserve the right to flip-flop again, because I'm still troubled by the references used, that there are only album reviews, that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry, that single-purpose accounts have sprung up from nowhere in defense of the article, and that some of the references used contain content that is so full of flowery language and pretentious gibberish like "syrupy organ points are viscously flowing through clouds of hiss" that I have to wonder if they are not either generated by algorithms, or if they are paid content generated by publicity companies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Cyphoidbomb. I have read what you have said very carefully and can you please show me your evidence that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry. I would very much like to see where you got this information from as it would change my vote and I feel unsettle by your utterances. Also, I have no idea what to make of your comments, but I'm of the opinion that the reason why people on here have defended the article is probably down to the subject actually being notable to some extent, and it would be strange if there was no defense. I'm under the impression that there are those who are willing to pettifog to be heard and do their utmost to traduce an article and/or a contributor to Wikipedia. What is more, I have read the WP:GNG and can not find anything about the word "desperate" or where it implies a suggestion of desperation. If you could please highlight this for me, it would be much appreciated Simon 16:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
User RomanSpa wrote above: "...I think you have to be pretty desperate to use 'ABC Radio National has aired some of his work' as a claim of notability - numerous people have performed on the BBC, or had their music played there, but that doesn't make them notable, it just means the BBC needed to fill up some airtime." So of course you aren't going to find "desperate" in the general notability guideline--it's a user's opinion. But the ABC references still don't establish notability per WP:BAND, they only indicate that the artist got some air time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyphoidbomb, with reference to what you said above, "That's not vilification, that's the "general notability guideline" and now you say "it's his opinion", this is confusing. Be that as it may, how do we know it was a "claim of notability"? I didn't see anything about this being a claim of notability. Nonetheless, I await for evidence that some of the editors have been implicated in paid editing situations as well as sockpuppetry. If no evidence is present, then I see your comments as nothing more than an absurd misrepresentation and contempt for the wishes of the majority. Simon 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Simon, this article has been nominated on the basis of potentially abusive editing as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#User:Flaviohmg_and_possible_COI. If you look at the editing pattern of the user involved and the evidence then there is very little doubt that this has occurred. Now, this does not immediately mean that the article should be deleted, but it does flag it up as suspicious and in need of review by some editors with expertise in the subject area. As for sockpuppetry.. well I note that the account SimoninIceland has only been used in connection with editing this article which is sometimes a sign of a sock or some other concealed interest. Also remember that if a subject is not notable now, it may become notable at a later date. However I must reassert that my opinion of this article is Delete given the apparent paucity of references. Shritwod (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, I don't understand much of what you are saying or asking, primarily because you are new, and I think you're processing what I and other editors are telling you in a manner that makes sense to you, but not to me. I have already (reluctantly) voted for the article to be kept and I have explained my rationale. So whatever "absurd"ities and misrepresentations you are perceiving, are entirely of your own fabrication. I've already explained why the ABC reference doesn't establish notability and I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how you're confused, so that I can un-confuse you. You've already stated your position. If you have a specific question, ask it. Further, we do not establish consensus by vote, we establish by discussion, and the closing admin can also take other factors into consideration, such as the people who comprise the consensus: are they sockpuppet accounts? are they meatpuppet accounts? Are they single-purpose accounts such as your own? So I don't think it is wise to accuse other users of having "contempt for the wishes of the majority" when that very majority could be called into question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Brian Dawe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DJ Brian Dawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Nothing to make him stand out from thousands of people in the same line of work. Shritwod (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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, NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Sho-Silva[edit]

Tobi Sho-Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 5 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) 08:48, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah (1998 film)[edit]

Noah (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles, as it stands, fails WP:NFILM rather alarmingly. It has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," it's completely, and it has no notable reviews on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. I'd say it would take a Heymann Standard-level clean up at this point. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The cast has many notables. Newsbank shows many good sources, like this one from The Record (Bergen County): "What, you may ask, is Tony Danza doing? The answer is 'Noah,' a Disney television movie in which a shady building contractor of today finds himself in the same position as the biblical Noah with an angel sent by God telling him to start building an ark because a flood is on the way..." Here is a review in the Video Source Book and one here in VideoHound. Probably more offline sources, judging from the premiere date. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing intended about the current nominator, but I'm not liking seeing a lot of AFDs about pretty clearly notable topics, started with apparent intention of calling on AFD participants to develop random articles chosen. AFD is not for cleanup. Tag an article for development if you like. --doncr am 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand you said it wasn't intended for me specifically, but it did not seem to be a notable topic to me in the slightest. A notable cast is not usually considered to be enough to warrant an article. For instance, Goose on the Loose, a 2006 film starring Chevy Chase, Kari Matchett, James Purefoy, Joan Plowright, Max Morrow, Tom Arnold, and William B. Davis, does not and probably never will have an article, considering an incredibly small amount of information on the film. Or the TV film The Cloning of Joanna May, which featured Patricia Hodge, Brian Cox, Peter Capaldi, Purefoy, Billie Whitelaw, and Oliver Ford Davies. Similar case to Goose on the Loose, in my mind. In the case of Noah, I felt this was similar. Very few outside sources of any note link to it, so it felt worthy to AfD. I'm starting to think perhaps I misjudged, but I nominated this article for deletion because I truly believed it should be deleted. Apologies if I come off too defensive, I'm not meaning to. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are hundreds of film stubs with less content than this one. Nothing a little TLC couldn't fix... Fortdj33 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it fails to meet notability. Regardless of whether other articles are like this or have less information, it still isn't notable enough, in my opinion. Rilech (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I feel the article could be saved, but only if a few sources are found for it. G S Palmer (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Improve/Source - Usually I vow to delete any unsourced articles but I feel someone in the film area can expand/improve it alot so I'm saying keep for now. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I added another secondary source. Seems kinda borderline, but I bet there are other secondary sources out there, so I'd say it's notable enough to warrant inclusion. Orser67 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep two sources (currently) so may meet WP:GNG, although second one is minor mention. Widefox; talk 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because our article isn't very good isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it. I've looked over WP:DEL-REASON and can see no good reason for removing this page. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What the hell is wrong with you? Obviously notable. JOJ Hutton 23:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did I do to deserve that abrasiveness? I stated my rationale and provided explanations for it. You have no reason to be rude to me. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:06, 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 Yoko Tsuno.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Le Trio de l'étrange[edit]

Le Trio de l'étrange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Each of the Yoko Tsuno books' articles are unsourced, and have been for years. They lack reception and are almost entirely plot summary. These articles need to be merged into a single article (likely Yoko Tsuno) or be deleted outright for lack of references. The following articles are also on the block:

  • While I can't blame the originator for this AfD or his reasoning, I believe that these shouldn't be deleted. These are books that have been continuously in print since their first appearance over 30 years ago (for the first titles), have been collected in larger editions as well, and have been translated in many languages (at least Dutch, German, English, Finnish, Spanish, Danish, Norwegian, Indonesian, ...) But, in general, children's comics don't get many newspaper reviews, and more importantly, French-language newspaers are mostly absent from Google searches due to disputes (copyright, reproduction, that kind of thing). This means that these comics are severely underrepresented online (in reliable sources I mean), even when they do have sources off-line. So, I can't support the deletion for this reason, but I can't really oppose this AfD either becaue's I can't present the evidence for my assertions... Fram (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential sources: [20] and perhaps this for Les Trois soleils de Vinéa. The book A propos de Yoko Tsuno also has info on many of these. This looks like a potential source for La Fille du vent. And this may be a good source for L'Or du Rhin. Fram (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that La Forge de Vulcain won the 1974 Prix Saint-Michel for best comic, which is the most important comics award in Belgium. Fram (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Absolutely no sourcing whatsoever. No evidence of notability. Delete each article and restore only when reliable sources are provided. Doduf (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Yoko Tsuno. Not seeing how deletion will benefit if brief explanations of the issues can be created in Yoko Tsuno with a related "list" template. At that point, all if the nominated titles could serve as redirects to the sections in Yoko Tsuno. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 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, ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 22:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Yoko Tsuno per Steel1943. While individual comics may not be notable, a list of books with uncontroversial verifiable facts about them, such as title, author and year published, would make a good addition to Yoko Tsuno page; per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD a merge of verifiable material is preferred to deletion. In fact, a list of the books is already at Yoko Tsuno#Albums, so it would be mostly establishing the redirects and merging any other verifiable material. --Mark viking (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 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 deleted by Crisco 1492 following consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Mansale (non-admin closure). Sideways713 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bong Kalo[edit]

Bong Kalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 5 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) 08:48, 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, all four articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bassey[edit]

Anthony Bassey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Asamoah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Diawandou Diagne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Samba Ndiaye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Abdur Rahman Madani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sheikh Abdur Rahman Madani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion tag removed. Sources provided do not support notability. The 2 Muslim aid references are passing mentions and dont support the claims made,2 "about" sources support information but not notability, and the BBC source is a passing mention only. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC Flat Out let's discuss it 00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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 deleted (non-admin close). Stalwart111 12:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rajhi Soft[edit]

Al Rajhi Soft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, all references are to the company's official web page, and it is written in marketingspeak. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference links was deleted and edit to include other sites talking about the company and other issues in the article --MaherBaker (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC) It was not my intention to remove a speedy deletion tag from Al Rajhi Soft, it happened while the editing of the page.--MaherBaker (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Were this article to survive it would need a complete rewrite, as it is written in marketing prose suitable for a company website, not an encyclopaedia. But the lack of evidence of notability should make this a deletion, possibly speedy A7. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is a Hindu?[edit]

Who Is a Hindu? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK Darkness Shines (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The editor needs to establish notability of this book before it will kept. I'll hold off voting until they have had a chance to do so. If not, my vote will be delete Bali88 (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Bali88. This book has been used as reference by thousands of writers. However, all of them only establishes notability for Elst. Not really for this book. Once it will achieve enough notability, article can be re-created. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:11, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_April_5&oldid=1142629917"