Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 August	14 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 03:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Al-Saraff[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a pro per Wiki definition. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No agreement to salt the article Guerillero | My Talk 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Women's tournament[edit]

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

This article borders on a hoax. No references are cited for the factual information within it. For example, it lists the venue for this sport as Exhibition Place, but this website states that a venue hasn't been announced. Aside from the poor grammar, which can be fixed, there are multiple redlinks, and statements which seem to have no basis in fact, such as "there will be just two automatically qualified team, the hosts Canada and the United States." The games will be in Toronto; how is the U.S. a host? Perhaps others feel this article has merit and can be salvaged and sourced. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's way too soon to be creating event articles for next year's Pan Am Games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future event, salt until two weeks after July 19, 2015. Uses future tense. No encyclopedic value, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and also there is a risk here of promoting the event. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and comment) - First, agree that it is too early for this article and there isn't enough detail to realistically populate an article. However, this is the second time I have seen "delete and salt until 2 weeks after the event" as a proposed solution to a future event article. First, salting the article after it has been created once is a serious overreaction. If we assume good faith, we would assume that the article was created in error by an editor who perhaps doesn't understand when "too soon" is to create an article about a notable event. Salting is an appropriate response if an article is recreated after AfD review, but would be an inappropriate response over just one perhaps ill-advised creation. Second, if you were going to salt it for some reason waiting until two weeks after the event is done is ridiculous. Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc. And as the event happens, users will update results real-time - in exactly the same way that election results are recorded on Wikipedia real-time, film awards are recorded as they are handed out, and deaths of notable individuals are recorded as the news breaks. As notable events occur, they are encyclopedic. The idea of having a completed notable event without an article for two full weeks after its conclusion is ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Rikster2 about these absurd salting proposals that have happened recently. Those are extreme measures taken when articles get re-created numerous times in spite of an AfD. Leave this (soon to be deleted) article alone and wait to see if anyone intentionally loops around the AfD to recreate it. I highly doubt it will happen. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals to emotion are not a substitute for policy based arguments, unless, of course, the objective is anarchy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy basis to your argument to salt the article until 2 weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Jrcla2 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No? Are you sure? To repeat your own words, "Real news...will be occurring a month or so prior..." So you are advocating to use Wikipedia as a newspaper instead of as an encyclopedia. That is not a policy-based position. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Further, there is no WP:DEADLINE. Why write articles in future tense, when editors know that what they are writing has no long-term value to the encyclopedia? How is that "building" an encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "real news" serves as sources for encyclopedic articles about notable events and reliable sources begin reporting about aspects of notable events prior to their occurance. Which means that there is sufficient information to start an article that will evolve as the event unfolds. In an extreme case you get a valid articles like Star Wars Episode VII or 2020 Summer Olympics. WP:CRYSTAL states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." There is nothing in there that precludes future events, just guidance for the conditions that must be present (which this article has not yet met, but most likely will before it officially starts). There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits creating articles on notable future events so long as reliable sources are reporting on them and the WP article is not serving as the primary source. Current events are documented on Wikipedia all the time in every domain and is certainly not forbidden. As to the suggestion of salting an article until two weeks after the event - no, there is no policy basis to that argument - and I am quite sure of it. If your issue is that you don't believe the FIBA-sponsored basketball tournaments that occur within the PanAm games are notable at all, that is a different argument that has nothing to do with articles on future and current events. It's also not one that has been brought up as an objection to this article. Rikster2 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you initially said "real news", you did not mean "real news sources", so the shift of meaning in your reply says something. Perhaps you are a newbie who doesn't know the difference between WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and the use of newspapers as sources. Perhaps you are aware of WP:CRYSTAL and haven't seen WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. To quote your words, "Real news about this FIBA-sponsored event will be occurring a month or so prior to the start of the tournament - announcement of the draw, suspensions, announcement of the country's squads, etc." I've below quoted WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which has many relevant points, for example, it specifically mentions "announcements". How much of such material will be of interest to readers in ten years? Or is the plan to write in future tense knowing that the material will be dated and worthless within weeks or months? I still remember an article about the 2012 US Olympics team that began reporting US medal totals over a year in advance. For over a year, the reports were always up to date and completely accurate, 0 gold, 0 silver, and 0 bronze. Instead of objecting to not being able to report announcements of future events because a future-event article is salted, I suggest that you use your talent to create timeless articles on topics such as Preparation for the 2015 Pan-American Games. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you know what I meant better than I do? Interesting. Real time events on a notable topic are fine to add to articles. You have an agenda and your best recourse would be to to try and find consensus through an RFC on the topic. Because no admin in their right mind would accept your suggestion of salting an article on a notable topic for two weeks after the event. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could this discussion be extended to the article Basketball at the 2015 Pan American Games – Men's tournament, a similar article created by the same editor? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it could, and there are another 6-8 "sports at the 2015 PanAm Games" articles (wrestling, football, etc.) that I assume would be under the same umbrella. Just take a look at the blue links here. Rikster2 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of which were created by myself and are well referenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest a redirect. I am working on adding references/creating articles related to event. A full deletion would not be helpful at this point. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote From WP:NOTNEWSPAPER:

“

2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

”

This is the issue. Your underlying assumption is that this event does not have enduring notability and therefore are suggesting that the material is routine news. this event (and even more so the 2015 NBA draft which was the other future event you tried to apply this argument to) has enduring notability, therefore the argument you are trying to apply is moot. If you disagree that this event has enduring notability, a good test case would be for you to AfD the corresponding article for a past PanAm games to test your theory. Rikster2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that "issue" is not something I've said so it is a red herring. For reasons that you've not explained, you want to use the excuse that this topic can be expected to be wp:notable to use Wikipedia to do newspaper reporting as the event draws near. I again suggest that you use your talent to write encyclopedic material that will stand the test of time. Unscintillating (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the topic is notable, then you should AfD the 2011 article of the same tournament. The tournament is what it is, either you think it is a notable recurring event or you don't. But if you insist on suggesting that this article be salted until 2 weeks after the event is over (the thing that I have pushed back on all along), then it would be helpful if you could provide examples where this has been done in the past (articles salted until a date a week or two after the future event is scheduled to end) so we can see how this case stacks up to those. I'd offer to help, but I honestly don't know of a single case where this has happened. Everyone agrees this article should be AfD'ed in August, 2014. Let's just leave it at that. Rikster2 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We are not talking about an event in 2011, we are talking about a future event. There is a difference between the two. We don't know that an event in 2015 will ever occur, and at Wikipedia, we don't need to WP:SPECULATE, as we can wait. There is a continuing risk that this title will be used to violate WP:NOT, so salting remains appropriate. "We've done it this way before" is a logical fallacy, because just because it has been done before does not prove that it has been done in the best way. I'm not sure as to the name of that fallacy, but it is related to argumentum ad populum. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have any precedence for what you are suggesting and would like this article to be the first. Got it. Rikster2 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for articles about events that may or may not happen, as we can wait until the event is done, and there is no WP:DEADLINE. IMO, doing otherwise risks opening up the pedia to commercial interests seeking to promote their future events. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already !voted above to delete this article because its creation was premature per WP:CRYSTAL; that is consistent with how we have handled future sports events over the last several years. However, I must strongly disagree with the suggestion that this article title should be "salted" and its re-creation prevented until some time after the Pan Am Games basketball tournament is actually completed; that is not consistent with the last several years of AfD precedents. There is no reason whatsoever why this article should not be re-created 30 to 60 days before the scheduled events begin to take place. Thirty-plus days before the event, reliable sources will be available regarding qualifying teams, team coaches and members, tournament seeding and brackets, tournament venues, etc. We routinely create articles for the Olympics, Olympic events, college and professional football seasons, and other similar sports events several months before the scheduled event or season begins. The Pan Am Games have been held 16 times since 1951, and we can be reasonably sure that the XVIIth iteration, including the women's basketball tournament, will be held in 2015. Bottom line: SALTING until the tournament is completed IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRABLE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (Film series)[edit]

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

List of films that contains one film, a list is not needed BOVINEBOY2008 21:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is more than one film in this film series. There's A Fairly Odd Christmas and A Fairly Odd Summer. Gccwang (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

?? Why delete an expandable stub? How about a sensible renaming and to The Fairly Oddparents (franchise) ?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All this info is already at List of The Fairly OddParents episodes. I don't think we need a separate article just for television films in the series. But that is just my view. BOVINEBOY2008 01:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bovineboy... I agree that a "film series" article is inappropriate when there is only one film and no "series"... but a franchise article covering the television series, film, toys, games, videos, etc. is a reasonable future consideration. Has the author been approached with this franchise idea? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm somewhat leaning towards improving the article rather than deletion, as this seems to be about the live action film series as opposed to the cartoon series. Both the animated series and the LA series are owned by the same people, but they aren't technically in the same universe. I'm not trying to pull an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of deal (since there are some differences between the two series coverage-wise), but I think that the article creator was trying to do something similar to Rebuild of Evangelion, where they list the live action movies on a page separate from the animated films so they could highlight the differences. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, given that there are some issues with notability on the later films, they could redirect to this page in particular as opposed to having individual film articles. Basically my big concern here is that while this does fall under the franchise, this isn't part of the main series- not really. It's pretty distinctly separate and while the three films are canon in their own universe, they're not canon in the main FOP universe. Some sort of separate distinction needs to be made since while they are part of the franchise, they're not really "episodes" of the main animated series per se. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also corrected the title for the article for capitalization and to reflect that this is about the live action series specifically as opposed to the animated films that were released as separate entities from this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79's improvements addressing the nominator's concerns toward the stub he nominated. Nice work. Very nice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl's improvements, but in line with MOS, suggesting a renaming to List of The Fairly OddParents live-action films ((I know, another renaming after The Fairly OddParents (live action film series)), but a little more descriptive and clear as a franchise would be more than one film a year. Nate • (chatter) 06:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... the problem with that is that this could potentially become an article on all of the details of the film series as a whole. For example, the specific aspects of the LA film series, like scripts, character development specific to the films, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing with the franchise thing, just that this could very well be more than just a list of movies and could be something like the main FOP article itself, so people would probably re-name it because it technically wasn't a list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done some editing to show that this is about the live action films specifically and I've done some editing on the other pages (like episode list) to reflect on that as well. The thing to remember here is that there were some animated films made for the series, but they were eventually sliced up into episode format. I've no doubt that they were made with the idea that this would eventually happen, but they were still made as part of longer animated films. The live action films are distinctly separate from the animated series and it's important to note that somewhere in the cascade of FOP pages. The LA franchise is notable enough for its own page, in my opinion. It also serves the side benefit of being a redirect point for the third film in the franchise, as that film doesn't seem to have received enough media attention to warrant a separate article at this point in time. In any case, a keep on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This Artical is completely legit and is capeable of being something that would be information freindly. Just a few changes should be made. (1) The Title should just be renamed to something a little more simple than: Fairlyodd parents (Live action Film-Series). I say The Fairlyodd parents (film series). And (2) The cast section must be redone into a colspan version than just a Box with the present and un - Present cast. If these 2 changes can be made. Than i say KEEP. Beside im the one who created this artical by a small portion. A user named Tokyogirl79 finished it in a Questionable manor. (Zucat)

I'm actually curious as to what you found questionable about my edits as they're pretty standard for most film and film-related articles. In any case, about the other things: We try to avoid using collapsible sections when it comes to articles- the only real time I've seen collapsible fields regularly used is in track listings in large pages. I would also recommend against naming it just "film series" because there are animated films in the FOP series and that were released as such on DVD and on TV. Specifying that these are live action is a pretty normal course of action. I'd also like to caution you against making conditional keep arguments in this manner, since this comes across as you trying to claim WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and nobody owns a Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways Flight 23[edit]

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

PROD tag removed with an irrelevant edit summary ("Is this flight code used repeatedly for the same route?"). Entirely unremarkable aviation incident, delete as WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event of no enduring historical significance. Per Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this is a run-of-the-mill event that does not warrant an article. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Event of no historical significance....William 13:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really of note for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete say no more!--Petebutt (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we would need a lot more than what is currently available to substantiate a longer-term impact. A suspension of flights for 25 minutes couldn't possibly be considered a long-term impact. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikrishna Upadhyay[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have any claims to notability other than the Right Livelihood Award. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Right Livelihood Award satisfies WP:ANYBIO: 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as an awardee of Right Livelihood Award, entepreneur and writer. —Ascii002 (Talk • Contribs • Sign my Guestbook) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question As I originally stated in the proposal, this subject's notability rests entirely on the inherent notability of receiving an award. Is the Right Livliehood Award a "significant" and "well known" honor? I do not think it is well known at all and has received only modest coverage. An example of something truly significant and well known might be the Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with most things, we look to reliable sources. The Swedish Government The 2013 Right Livelihood Laureates announced and press from around the world attest to the significance and awareness of the award. See, e.g. (not all links are about this particular recipient), Washington Post and Associated Press, The Independent and Nepali Times. Yes, there are awards that are even more well known but the guideline does not read "has received one of the most well-known or significant awards or honors". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, though, if there's literally no other significant mentions of him, at most we can support including a brief biography on, say, "List of recipitants of the Right Livelihood Award" - not a stand-alone article? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While English language sources may be sparse for now, there may well be more in Nepali and other languages that will become translated over time. I see the purpose of additional guidelines such as WP:ANYBIO as suggesting alternative bases for notability for those who may not currently meet WP:BASIC at the time someone receives an award. If he hasn't received additional coverage or Nepali language speakers don't show up here by some years after his death, future editors could surely revisit this. In the meantime, I believe we should try very hard to be inclusive toward regions of the world about which our covergage is sparse. See WP:WORLDVIEW. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) And it can also take westerners like me awhile to realize that we shouldn't be searching for sources using a name with the honorific (Shri, Sri, Shree) attached. All the more reason not to be so quick to pull the trigger. 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Speculation. Note that WP:ANYBIO - the "won an award" criterion you're quoting - is part of a section that starts by saying "conversely, meeting one or more [of these] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is it really a well-known and significant award? Really? So much that it overrules all other notability criteria? To the point that the only sources mentioning him are brief mentions of the award? Even with the award, there's no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The award may be just notable enough to include a list of recipients, with a one-paragraph biography in the article on the award, but if there's no sources, it's clearly not enough for a stand-alone article on the person. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should have caught this earlier, but we really should be searching for him without the honorific, thus, "Krishna Upadhyay". Immediate hits such as [3], [4] and [5]. My opinion is that he now passes WP:BASIC as well as WP:ANYBIO. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear for the future, ANYBIO, in itself, is not sufficient to establish notability by itself:

“

Additional criteria

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using {{BLP sources}} for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion.

Any biography

Shortcut

WP:ANYBIO

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have modified the previous comment to stop it from messing up later AfD nominations. Bad idea to copypaste pages into an AfD like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, notable person.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites significant coverage in the Nepali Times and The Washington Post. The Right Livelihood Award is legitimate. The Google Books searches linked above show plenty of discussion of the subject. Obviously a notable individual. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Aymatth2 and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found lots of coverages in the Nepali Times, including this persons of the year award.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Nabil Elhussieny[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Estonian First Division, the Egyptian Second Division, and the UEFA Champions League. The first two of these are not confirmed as fully pro, meaning the that playing in them does not confer notability. His appearances in the Champions League were in qualifying, meaning that they do not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has only played in Meistriliiga and the Egyptian Second Division, neither of which are Fully professional leagues therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He doesn't have any international caps either. IJA (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a full pro. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flight (Search the City album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Hasn't hit any charts that I can find. Several of the songs had articles that have since been deleted via AfD. Will add the other two songs with articles to this AfD. The articles for songs all say they have hit the Billboard Christian Rock chart. However, Billboard says they have not charted. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS, although the main Billboard site doesn't list the Christian Rock chart, they are the ones who maintain that chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NALBUMS for a stand-alone article. Neither Billboard nor Allmusic.com indicate the album charted. I found no significant coverage in anything other than non-RS blog reviews. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ both of the singles you listed claim to have charted; two charting singles should pass WP:NALBUMS --Guerillero | My Talk 03:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, please find a reference for the claim. WP:NALBUMS says ... must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are no sources at all in the article, nevermind reliable ones. I was unable to find any. CactusWriter was unable to. The creating editor has a history of putting up claims that nobody could find references for, including making up charts. Without reliable sources, it does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a Jesus Freak Hideout review in my quick search. I am looking for more things --Guerillero | My Talk 04:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striking due to the fact that I can't verify the charts. I am tempted to block Zlgiancarlo because I don't think he has any idea what he is doing. (this album is independent. Search the City got dropped from tooth and nail in 2010. That's why there is less coverage than I expected) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rieker Inc[edit]

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

User:Bearian, User:James500

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY and remains with no reliable sources after 8 years Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I seconded the Prod and must agree with the nom. I did a couple of quick searches online, and found nothing reliable and significant, just lots of social media, blogs, and directories -- Zero news ghits. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ding me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding nothing more than a couple of pieces of routine description of products by the company. Unless something better can be located, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account (User:Sistema Firjan), also responsible for the following pages (as listed by the account itself):

By glancing at all pages, I'd say they are pretty much promotional material on potentially notable organizations created by a promotional account. This editor did the same thing at the Portuguese Wikipedia, I might add. Could we nominate them all at once so we have one single discussion? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am marking this because no one above appears to have expressly recommended deletion even though that appears to be implicit in the above discussions.--Rpclod (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, you are just the second to reply on my nomination... The Banner talk 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:47, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all. I was trying to understand what you read in this article that motivated the initiative to nominate it for deletion. Reading the above, I came up to the conclusion that there are two reasons for that:

"find sources" ;
"At first I was willing to save this article (indeed, I believe a major cleanup could leave a fine stub), but now I just found out that the article was created by a corporative account".

Well, regarding the first reason (not enough sources), I worked that out and included another 5 independant and reliable sources - which I hope will solve the problem. But with respect to the second reason... is there any? As far as I am aware of, Wikipedia does not prohibit organizations to edit. Further in cases when "a major cleanup could leave a fine stub". Can we do this cleanup together in order to keep the article? The same applies to the other article's debate, about the Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro. All the best, Bernardo Sistema Firjan (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is more the case that mr. Sistema Firjan is promoting the work of the company Sistema Firjan based on non-independent sources supplied by Sistema Firjan. The Banner talk 13:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-independent sources"? I am afraid you know nothing about news vehicles in Brazil. I suggest you take a look at the websites below (which are referenced in this article) in order to inform yourself better, given the fact that you are looking forward to eliminating articles related to important themes of my country without the necessary knowledge to do so:

G1 portal: a news portal from Globo Organization;
GloboNews: an all news TV channel;
Monitor Mercantil: a traditional newspaper specialized in finance/economy that exists since 1912;
O Dia: a very popular daily newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, created in 1951;
Último Instante: a famous real time news provider.

There are other examples, but I won´t waste more time with someone who positions himself with destructive commentaries and is not opened to learn.

And frankly, administrators should limit your influence in Wikipedia, since your behavior seems to go against its policies.

--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to partially agree with Sistema Firjan on that one; the sources above are indeed independent and acceptable. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 21:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 out of 22 (in fact 6 out of 23) sources link to the Firjan website. The rest I did not judge, as I don't speak Portugese. But with the company name abbreviated to Firjan and this article written by User:Sistema Firjan, some suspicion about the neutrality of the author and the article are warranted. The Banner talk 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you have all the reasons in the World to question neutrality, and I questioned it too. I'm just clarifying it so that nobody misjudges those sources later. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just performed a major cleanup on the article. I removed what I considered to be blatant advertisement that would require a significant rewriting to abide to our guidelines and left what I thought was important to at least let readers know what the institution is about. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation, diligence and wiki spirit, Victão Lopes. I appreciate your effort to improve this article. Do you think the changes you have made are enough to remove the deletion label? And the "orphan" label, which it is not? Many thanks, Bernardo.--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion is now up to the community. The tag will only be removed when this debate is declared "closed", which is normally (but not exclusively) done by an administrator. It will depend on how other editors judge the article. If nobody else expresses their opinions here, it might be closed as "no consensus reached", which will mean the article will be kept as it is now, but anyone can nominate it for deletion again anytime. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After my clenaup edit, I think the article has become less promotional. Notability is now quite evident given the independent multiple sources. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 22:22, 31 July 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 | speak _ 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: We need at least one more comment to assess the work done by Victão Lopes

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's no doubt the new version is better. I still have some concerns that the same sources appear several times - multiple instances of coverage from the same source isn't considered "multiple sources" for the purposes of WP:N. But there are other sources there and while I don't speak Portuguese, the subject is mentioned in the title. I think, if nothing else, the "advertising" concerns have been addressed. Though the remaining COI is obviously an issue, it isn't a valid reason for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no outstanding delete votes.

Alicia Endemann[edit]

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

Was previously deleted at AfD; recntly recreated Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to understand how someone who has become top model (Miss germany) in a country of 80 million people isn't notable. If a writer won the top national literary award, or a musician won the top national music award, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Endemann also has some prominence as an actor. Sionk (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. National title-holder who has represented her country at an international level in one of the main pageants. There is precedent for considering such articles notable at a basic level. It needs some basic rewording but it is a fair enough basic stub with sufficient sourcing. Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass. Major, national-level beauty pageant titleholder, who went on to compete in the internationally televised and publicized Miss Universe 2012 pageant. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn When it was last at AfD (2012) there was a different response, resulting in delete. However, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination based on the opinions given above. Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The previous delete vote was EXTREMELY close - almost virtually a no consensus. I was surprised it was actually deleted, but I can imagine it was an extremnely close run thing. Mabalu (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Willis (footballer, born 1995)[edit]

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

Non notable footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He has yet to make a senior appearance. At this stage he lacks notability. IJA (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Gordon[edit]

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

No evidence of notability despite being created by User:GORDON JENNIFER and edited by User:FR-GORDON and most recently User:GORDON FRANCK who has today been publicising a self-published book at 2 articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability criteria, article is self-glorifying and commercial in its intend and purposes. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Iry-Hor.WegianWarrior (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, the entire article seems to be a WP:ADVERT for the author's non-notable works. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promo bollox. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and others, promotional and non-notable. VViking_TalkEdits 02:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of attained notability, either as WP:AUTHOR or by general biographical criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG WP:COI WP:RS etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank nominator for the phrasing of the nomination text, regardless of the nomination itself. Anarchangel (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unintentional creation Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Railway[edit]

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

BILL (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! I ACCIDENTLY MARKED IT FOR DELETION. IT WAS ACCIDENT. DONT DELETE IT. IM SORRY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy on Boxes (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Intentions (song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 17:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article with info from the already-listed NME reference, as well as these reviews of the single. That's enough to meet WP:NSONGS. Gongshow talk 02:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great - withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BLP and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources fail WP:RS. Extensive bibliography is from fringe sources and affiliated publications. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. This appears to be a fairly glaring case of WP:PROFRINGE and WP:SPAM Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See also this related discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator says, this article fails to pass any of the various standards we have for biographical articles. Having looked back at various historical versions of the article the hoped-for improvements to this article have not materialised. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous arguments centered around whether the guy was notable as a homeopath. That's an interesting question. We should determine whether there is enough independent notice of this person to warrant a WP:FRINGEBLP. Despite rather careful searches including a few I had some friends do in Hindi (the same dubious PR-fluff stories that are currently cited in the article [OMG! HE'S CURING AIDS!] kept coming up, but nothing that was truly a WP:RS-worthy of inclusion in our article), there is very little in the way of thoughtful, independent profiling that I can find about this person. The article is essentially functioning as a WP:SOAP and after two failed AfDs where assurances were made that cleanup was possible, I think it's time to put this to rest. jps (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. CutestPenguin • Talk 13:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Notable only within a small fringe community, if that. Nothing worth saving or merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jps. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panam Percy Paul[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Subject might be notable, but I'm not finding sources for the listed awards. Article has been previously deleted once as an A7 speedy and once via PROD-BLP. --Finngall ^talk 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:GNG The subject has gotten coverage from The Nation Newspaper, allAfrica.com, Today Newspaper in Abuja and The Sun. I will be adding these sources to the article shortly. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I'm not a fan of the contemporary gospel, this name rang a bell immediately I saw it. Besides, the article is referenced with notable dailies, establishing that the subject meets WP:GNG. I think it need more verification (references), that's all.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. Salunkhe[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that there is an entry for this guy on the Marathi Wikipedia linked under the Languages tab. Google Translate gives a pretty entertaining translation. That article seems more developed but I don't see a specific references section. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced BLP - no comment on his notability, which we can't judge due to hte lack of sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above !votes for deletion are reasonable enough as the article currently stands (though not absolute policy, given the age of the article), but will immediately fail if and when references are added. For someone largely writing in Marathi, most sources are also likely to be in Marathi, and while there are potential sources shown on the GBooks search, I am finding it difficult to judge whether they are all for the subject rather than someone of the same name. It would therefore be very valuable if a Marathi-speaking editor or someone with some knowledge of the subject could find and add suitable references, and if a second week could be allowed for this discussion, to give a better chance for this to happen. PWilkinson (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives are to WP:SOFTDELETE or to see if one can get hold of an editor from the Marathi Wikipedia.--Laun chba ller 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He gets non-trivial coverage in Savant, Discovery of God (definitely the right person, one of the books metioned by Savant is in the bibliography in our article). Non-trivial coverage in Omvedt, Buddhism in India, extensive coverage in Jamanadas, Decline and Fall of Buddhism who describes him as "a prominent OBC thinker", Bhagavan in Speaking Truth to Power describes him as one of the "important recent interpreters" of Tuka (Tukaram). I am stopping there, not because there are no more book sources to list, but because that is enough. All this without even bothering to look for Maharathi sources which must certainly be more extensive. I am also seeing him mentioned in Indian newspapers like Times of India and someone with access to a regional news database could probably find a lot more. SpinningSpark 16:41, 13 August 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the previous comment, there are sufficient sources. Finding them did not seem to require a knowledge of Marathi. Nominators should make a reasonable effort to look. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a cite to One India News for an award he received, but I doubt that that's the most notable thing about him. SpinningSpark 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple sources returned by simple Google books search. See WP:BEFORE: "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Several sources testify notability AAA3AAA (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Efektpol[edit]

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

Nonnotable film production subcontractor business Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill film production contractor. Literally tens of thousands of such firms exist. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to prod this. MILL per Bearian. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. THre is probably an article here, but as pointed out, there is too much OR here for this to be it. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums considered the best[edit]

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

This entire article is original research. We aren't supposed to take a bunch of random surveys, put them together then compute arbitrary aggregates. The article even repeatedly admits that it uses a "methodology" (which is WP:OR by itself) then that it is "questionable" (as if it was ok for articles to be unsourced as long as you admit it). All in all, such an aggregate presents next to no interest since it's combining data that is not meant to be combined. Laurent (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much every album has someone somewhere sometime who thought it was the best ever. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet stand-alone list notability criteria while the table is original research. Such lists are only notable when they are produced by a reliable source—for example Rolling Stone's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. The media keep churning out these album lists, so it deserves to be here. However, the median ranking business is WP:OR. I'd rather go with albums in the top 10 on at least one component listing. Also, get rid of some of the weaker sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept is inherently unencyclopedic. "Albums that have made the top 10 of the Billboard 200" is encyclopedic, and there are corresponding articles like that for every year. List of best-selling albums also works and has an article. "List of albums considered the best" doesn't mean anything. --Ashenai (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - We have other articles that cover all this which are all better named. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "list of the best albums" is not notable. This article is. It can definitely be well sourced and extensive. It's already quite well researched.--Coin945 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well established format for many list articles which aggregate information from multiple sources. The only thing remotely approaching OR is the median column, but that could fall under the Routine Calculation clause of OR. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhether or not this list is classed as unencyclopaedic, we still have List of films considered the best, which has survived four AfDs with WP:snow keeps, and would likely survive another if nominated. The articles are of the same nature, and wikipedia should be consistent. Martin451 16:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's been nominated four times by four different users indicates that there's perhaps a problem, and indeed the article is far from great. It's possibly less worse than List of albums considered the best since it doesn't attempt to aggregate the data. In any case, even if the list of albums is kept, it will have to be completely reworked. As it is, it is a joke - for instance, according to it, there has been only two albums "considered the best" in the past 30 years, which is ridiculous. That's why, if there's pretty much nothing to keep, deletion actually makes sense. Laurent (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The existence of the List of films considered the best article isn't germane to this discussion according to the principle of "other stuff exists". Philg88 ^♦talk 06:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Philg88's point on notability.Forbidden User (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it and Fix it There is nothing in the nomination that cannot be easily fixed. These do not appear to me to be "random surveys" or "arbitrary aggregates". (I would really appreciate it if people stick to policy-based terminology and avoid subjective language like this when nominating articles for deletion.) The "Median rank" has to go - that's OR. (Median is a simple calculation, but using it as a basis for rank is OR, and unlikely to be meaningful for any purpose without statistical weighting for any other factors, which we can't do.) But the surveys used are IMO an admirable selection from RS, notable in themselves, though I wish non-English charts were more readily available and better represented here. From WP:OR, "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." Where in WP policy or guidelines is it suggested that putting well sourced data in a table is OR? It's done all over WP, and it is not per se OR. Is there something special about the word "aggregate" that makes this article problematic? "Aggregate means put together. In this case, the data is put together into a table, not combined numerically or in some way that synthesizes new content (except for the mean). I think genre should either be eliminated or disabled as a sortable variable. (No one agrees on what genres even mean, and most of these have several.) Rewrite all of the prose. Don't just say what's wrong with the methodology. There is no methodology to excuse if we use data, as-is, from RS. The methodology is theirs, not ours. Criticize their methodology if appropriate. Use List of films considered the best as a template and fix this article if necessary, but I like it as a sortable table. As a reader, I want this kind of information available in an encyclopedia. Limiting an article to albums that made the top ten of the Billboard 200 is exactly that - limiting. And basing an article on sales does not get to the artistic value of these albums, as determined by very widespread expert opinion, gathered by the various sources. Remember what a hit Macarena and Achy Breaky Heart were? They sold well, but expert polling might not rank them quite so high based on artistic merit. It's a whole different kind of information from sales (and airplay, downloads, streaming, etc.) I do have a lingering concern about copyright though. Are the rankings copyrighted? Dcs002 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, as above, fix it. I was on the fence for a while but I think that reworking it so to make it look like List of films considered the best is doable and would make of this a worthwile article too. I see no policy-based reason for deletion: there is no WP:OR in simply aggregating what several sources say, otherwise all articles would be WP:OR.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presenting this as a table is in and of itself OR. It is saying that these disparate lists are, in fact, comparable when no source has said that. The table is ordered by the median calculation and hence the entries are restricted to those with high medians. Missing entries may have featured highly on some lists while included entries are as low down as 424 on some lists. This cannot be fixed in this format (and in this format it is not equivalent to the list of films article). Not convinced the topic can ever be encyclopaedic, but even if it can, for this article it should be blown up and started over. SpinningSpark 15:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically suggesting to edit the list. Problems that can be solved by editing must be solved by editing and not deletion, per our deletion policy.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:40, 13 August 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 16:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 03:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Scholten[edit]

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

"Dutch practitioner of homeopathy and author of several books." Lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR. The article has been trimmed quite a bit since its largest version in May 2008. -Location (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pseudophysician practising pseudomedicine and producing pseudoscholarship. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject does not appear to pass any of the standards for a WP:BLP article. None of this subject's publications seem to have had that much impact even within the fringe field in which he publishes. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources hugely fail RS and a Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. The article also has more than a whiff of WP:PROFRINGE about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No RS, soapy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Kings (2012 painting)[edit]

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

The sources in this article don't have anything to do with the subject (the painting) itself. And it seems to consist mostly of original research interpretation. Holdek (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I'm actually going to propose this for deletion instead. --Holdek (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Sinner[edit]

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

The subject appears to not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not providing reliable sources. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easily meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND criterion #1 with coverage in reliable sources such as the Kamloops Daily News [6], The Vancouver Sun [7] [8], The Province [9] [10], Rocky Mountain Outlook [11], Kamloops This Week [12], The Windsor Star [13], Burnaby Now [14], the Georgia Straight [15], Exclaim! [16] and so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are few, their fan base is very low, and a up-and-coming band do not need to have a Wikipedia Page. The article has not encyclopedia interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeUs SoSo (talk • contribs)

Keep per Paul Erik; there are sufficient sources to establish that this trio meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 02:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has this band won an award, or reached any chart? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. message me. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for inclusion do not require a band to win an award or reach any chart. — sparklism ^hey! 07:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the article seems to be about advertising and promotion, please see WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:SOAP. The article has a low-quality writing skill and the sources are not enough to stable that the article needs a Wikipedia Page. ZeUs SoSo (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above from the nominator. Your nomination is your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paul Erik has demonstrated that the band meets WP:BAND and passes the general notability guide. The arguments presented here that the article has a low-quality writing skill and the article has not encyclopedia interest are not really valid reasons for deletion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Review of the sources posted by User:Paul Erik indicate that this band passes WP:BAND and WP:GNG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOTESSAY Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy for Life[edit]

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

It is an unsourced essay on the reasons how to stay healthy. The article was CSDed, then declined, PRODed, then removed, so this is the last step. Piguy101 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passengerpigeon's declining speedy was right per WP:NOTCSD (unfortunately), but this is really a hopeless essay/how-to article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Passengerpigeon's decline was justified. I just hoped that a sysop would WP:IAR and delete the article anyway. Piguy101 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I U5ed it from the user page, but without an inviting-to-buy link, it's not a CSD for anything else. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopaedic. Looks possibly like artspam, but I can't say what for - perhaps the link never got posted. Otherwise, it's an essay. Hmmm, I've just found laabpedseoschool.com - Laabped69 is the author of the article. Interesting. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails per WP:NOTESSAY. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bondy[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for nearly four years. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor entertainer. Couldn't find any significant coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've now added nine sources. Meets WP:GNG with coverage in the Windsor Star, the Times Colonist, and the Halifax Daily News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very localized, but has the references one would expert for a local personality. LaMona (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moonee Ponds, Victoria. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moonee Ponds West Primary School[edit]

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

New article created by new account. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Victoria (Australia)~~ Moonee Ponds, Victoria per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The locality for this school is Moonee Ponds, Victoria. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just been one of those weeks!, Thanks for correcting me, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Gene93k's suggestion. AlanS (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moonee Ponds, Victoria, per standard practice. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As we usually do with schools at this level, absent unusual notability as reflected in RSs. Which I do not see here (though it does exist, even though one could not tell that from the absence of refs in the article). Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Poseidon[edit]

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

YouTube prank group from Western Australia. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, lacking a breadth of in-depth coverage, which is independent of the subject, in multiple sources. AlanS (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is [17] and [18]. No opinion yet on whether those, alone or in combination with other coverage out there, is sufficient to meet the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Having made the national news once is not enough to satisfy either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:NEVENT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Way too soon. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Skype recorders[edit]

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

Interesting, but doesn't seem notable or encyclopaedic. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per "Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports." Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - We do various software comparision tables, but these tabulate information for items that have wikipedia articles, which is kind of navigation pages. Comparison of minor components fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am happy to keep this content but the criteria for inclusion is finding a published reliable source which has already done this comparison. If someone already has published any "Comparison of Skype recorders" then I think all comparisons could be developed here. To keep this article I would want to see that this is a topic that an independent authority has already seen fit to publish, even if Wikipedia is much more comprehensive. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy González[edit]

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

A not-notable actress NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't agree more. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she's only had four small roles on telenovels. Fails WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are many roles listed on the Spanish language page, but no references. Unless there are some strong references, this needs to go. LaMona (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's being doing Mexican shows since she was young. I think she's more notable than other actors or actresses that have articles on here. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 08:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then find sources to add, if there are any. — Wylie pedia 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is two years old and has had plenty of time to have sources. Original research and IMDb don't count. — Wylie pedia 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Canning Vale, Western Australia. Clear consensus that the topic isn't notable, but redirects are cheap and no one has given a reason not to redirect. As Mkativerata notes, if anyone wishes to they can merge anything by looking through the article history. Jenks24 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Marketplace[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Natg 19 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the TP of the stub before deletion. I believe there may be two distinct articles to (one of) which we could redirect this. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks to be 15,000 square meters, far below what we commonly view as notable when it comes to malls. The consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep repeating things where it has been explained to you that what you say is incorrect? Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canning Vale, Western Australia. This should be done by redirecting the article but retaining the history for the merger of any relevant content. Unless I'm looking in the wrong places, I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources justifying a stand-alone article for this small retail centre. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete the events surrounding Dante Arthurs do contribute to a level of notability, I'd also dispute that footprint of 5,000sqm as the centres actually footprint is considerably larger at 3 to 5 times its floor space, its the largest single feature of the area and totally unrelated to the area where the average property footprint is just 500-700 sqm. I will note that the closing admin should delete the photo as it fails the requirements WP:FU as its realistically possible a free licensed photo could be readily obtained. Its on the cusp of being notable but at the moment its not there and there isnt any forward planning I can find that may tip it over the line in the near future. Gnan garra 13:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a sufficient level of notability (I wish I could unread the Arthur's stuff). Given that an insufficient level of notability is established I suggest deletion as per any other small mall. AlanS (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Britton[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for which no indication is given that the player has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Hasn't played in a fully professional football league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL Hack (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG AlanS (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle Foundation[edit]

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

basically promotional article , with no evidence for actual notability DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If DGG asks it, it should be for some justified reason. I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A genuine G11 candidate. Peculiarly, the original version from 2007 isn't as bad (although still bad enough). Aside from the promotional nature of the article, the subject does not appear to be notable. There seem to be little snippets of coverage of various activities and fundraising drives here and there (eg [19]) but even if a case for (marginal) notability could be made, that case shouldn't obstruct the absolutely necessary deletion of this article unless fundamentally rewritten before then. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of the Internet. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy internet[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria, but it's an unusual page. When I prodded, it was removed with the reason: 16 pages of results in GBooks. Perhaps a plausible redirect or disambiguation page. I propose either deletion, or a redirect or disambiguation page if anyone can find suitable targets and it is agreed that the article as it stands is non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it were just the current definition, I'd say wiktionary it or redirect to ipv4 but not surprisingly the meaning of the term changes over time. I've added a ref for the ipv4 meaning and a ref for one older one referring to old services like gopher and wais. I expect more refs can be found for other meanings and I think the result will be a nice encyclopedic entry that will help readers sort out what someone means when they use the term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article sits, I say delete because it is non-notable. I can't find really any notable coverage of "Legacy internet". I don't think i have heard the term Legacy Internet in my life. In the first citation^[2], i think the author is referring to legacy networking hardware that does not support IPv6, rather than IPv4 being legacy itself. Additionally, IPv4 seems far from legacy, with only about a ~4% IPv6 adoption rate as of 08/13/2014 ^[3]. Maybe a list of Internet Protocols considered Legacy or Superseded Internet Protocols could be made instead? Matthewburmeister (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The legacy Internet is real, but unfortunately this isn't it. Well, actually, there are a number of cut-off points that one could use to define "legacy Internet" but IPv6 isn't one I would choose. This is covered in Internet history. Any additional information could be added there. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Would a redirect without merge to Internet history be appropriate? James500 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Change page to redirect to Internet history. Frmorrison (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inflatable tunnel[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two published sources seem to establish the notability of the topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep google search shows numerous manufacturers, and independent sources are available as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - It needs some TLC not deleting . –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Really? We have a Wikipedia article on inflatable tunnels for football games?? Who knew? Sources exist, so it stays. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's a fluff article, but there actually are sources for it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. It's perhaps a "niche" item but it's a notable one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided, and considering that the article cites sources that appear to be mainstream media sources, such as Fakty i Kommentarii, I can't give decisive weight to the arguments criticizing the quality of the sourcing. Sandstein 07:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for MH-17[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable third-party sources to establish the notability of this poem. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WWGB,

Thank you for alerting me. As far as I understand, the main motive for proposing deletion is lack of evidence for notability of the poem, right? Perhaps the reason why you cannot confirm its notability (if you've tried) is that you are looking for it in English. Search in Russian ("Реквием по МН-17" in quotes, I include the link for results below) and you'll see that this - only one week old! - poem returns 54,000 hits, with numerous sites copying it, with radio broadcasts, replies in verse written, some sites closed for commenting it in anticipation of hate statements, some news sources claiming (I cannot confirm whether this correct) that the author's work (not only this but in general) has already been officially banned, etc. etc. It is an important political story developing alongside the MH-17 crash, and attracting in Russia perhaps as much attention (and tension) as the crash itself. It is invisible in the West because of the language barrier, but I don't think such barrier justifies exclusion from Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address other issues as well, but I'd like to hear first whether what I've said makes sense. Thanks, here is the search link [20] Borisovich (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC) BTW, here is a reprint of the poem on an Israeli tv channel page: [21][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flash-in-the-pan, no coverage qua poem. WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some nobody wrote a poem. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The reading by a well-known actress of a poem critical of the government on "the last bastion of free media in Russia" is definitely notable in Russian language sources. Try Russian language google news search. Or run a couple of these selected links thru google translate. [22], [23], [24]. Orlusha is not well known in english language sources, but see [25] for a brief mention. The historical role of poetry in Russian political dissent may also be relevant in judging notability. See, e.g., Requiem (Anna Akhmatova). The Memorials section of International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown comes to mind as one possible merge target. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some nobody wrote a poem Andrei "Orlusha" Orlov is not a nobody. He is a celebrity in Russia, and if you follow the link to his page in Russian rhyme, rhithm, tomwikipedia, you'll find (in Russian, of course) a link to the article of Dmitry Bykov where he claims that "Orlusha is the principal Russian poet of our time". (Well, to explain who Dmitry Bykov is, it suffices to say that, among dozens of other roles, he is the author of an award-winning biography of Pasternak.) If Orlusha were nobody, then no one would pay attention to his poem in Russia in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisovich (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the reading by a well-known actress of a poem critical of the government on "the last bastion of free media in Russia" is definitely notable. English translation is horrid at the moment but better ones are in the works. As long as notable developments in foreign countries are allowed, this should stay.Wilanthule (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding notability do you base this on? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wilanthule, a better translation would be great. Could you please make sure it's not a pony, but is respectful to the art form of the original (rhyme, rhythm, tone, etc.)? Thanks! Borisovich (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, for now. My Russian is only rudimentary at best, but Orlov (not the same person as Andrei Orlov, by the way) seems to be a reasonably noted writer, and the reading out of the poem seems to have caused some political ripples. I expect there may be additional sources available in Russian or Ukrainian that would push this past the WP:GNG, but I don't have the language skills to fish them out. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 13 August 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 06:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:GNG for 3 weeks already. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added references to translations (now in three languages) and references to establish heated discussions of poem on highly-visited Russian forums. Perevodit (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note forums are not valid references for wikipedia.Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not mention what the Poem is about. As a reader the state of this article is not useful. 78.35.217.33 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources given are not reliable sources; they are blogs, forums and networking sites. I would love to cover this topic but I don't see it passing the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk 04:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Chaney[edit]

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

Only real claim to notability is relation to his grandfather and great grandfather. He has contributed to a few projects about his family and appeared in a few minor independent films. All the sources are either primary, simple genealogical entries, or not about the subject i.e. the trailer for a film he happens to be in. A search for sources on Ron results in nothing for me. [26] Ridernyc (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a minor actor. The article lacks the secondary sitations generally needed for this kind of think. At best we should merge to the article on his grandfather and add a sentence about him appearing in similar roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He starred in House of the Wolf Man and had a major role (billed sixth) in Coffin Baby; those two major roles may be enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:ENT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 12 August 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 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and John. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are very weak, and mostly crowd-sourced WP:RS LaMona (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only sources I can find are passing mentions of him attending events or talking about his grandfather. So he's only notable by association, therefore belongs in the Lon Chaney article. AdventurousMe (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hit publish too soon. He is already well and appropriately covered in the Lon Chaney, Jr. article as someone who talks about his grandfather at events. AdventurousMe (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pornosonic[edit]

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

A hoax, although not a conventional one, that nobody's picked up on for seven years. Not since Fadl Attraction have I seen a botch like this. Not a single statement in the article is true. Ron Jeremy wasn't making porn films in 1971, but got started nearly a decade later; Don Argott isn't a session musician, and wasn't even born until a year after his supposed meetup with Jeremy; and none of the porn films mentioned in the tracklists even exist. Argott is a real person who led a non-notable band of this name, which recorded a joke album, and this article is based on the humorous, but entirely fictional, advertising/hype for that album. Therefore, delete and redirect to Don Argott, where the band is already properly covered. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, probably speedy~~: the description in the article is derived from a direct copy/paste of the Amazon description, with very little modification. This looks like a novelty-album that took on a life of its own, which is another way of saying it's a hoax. A redirect is a good idea. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Issues have been addressed to my satisfaction. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album has been covered in at least two professional music magazines, I've added the refs to the article and rewritten the content accordingly. That it's fake is of no relevance, Wikipedia covers hoax when they are reliably sourced. Diego (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I don't know that it's accurate to describe it as a "hoax", since the intent isn't to seriously deceive. With that said, I'm not sure that there is the necessary independent sourcing to push this over the WP:GNG line, although searching this on Google does turn up some somewhat unwholesome results, which makes it difficult. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:18, 13 August 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 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Diego Moya's rewrite turned the hoax into an article about a hoax that exists outside of WP. The sources are pretty much run-of-the-mill music reviews, but they are independent of each other so I believe WP:GNG is satisfied. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax article, but before Diego Moya rewrite cleaned it up, it appears like an editor was hoaxed into believing the album's hoax blurb was true (or was having fun by reproducing it as if it were true). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed a bit more of it: it is not an album, but two albums, i.e., a musical project. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iran at the 1958 Asian Games#Boxing. Mkdw ^talk 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian boxers at the 1958 Asian Games[edit]

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

No need for separate articles like this. We do not have other articles of this kind, someone made this one only because he is interested or related to one of the athletes (Hassan Pakandam) in this list. Mohsen1248 (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominators rational. There already is Boxing at the 1958 Asian Games and Iran at the 1958 Asian Games and this seems to be nothing more than overkill. Any novel information should more properly be inserted into the latter article which itself could do with a bit of text rather than listing of results. To be fair in the contest to the original PROD the author mentioned 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team as precedent. Still I don't think its quite the same with basketball article clearly demonstrating notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable, but doesn't really need it's own page. Constance Lahaye (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose to Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has the same situation as 2012 United States men's Olympic basketball team, since there is an article on Basketball in the 2012 Olympics and United States in the 2012 Olympics there are many other similar articles to these. The Iranian Boxing Team at the 1958 Asian Games which did not change mainly for about a decade were the first to participate in an Asian grand tournament leading the way for Iranian Boxing to find its way in the Asian tournaments after Tokyo 1958, as a basis for Iran Boxing to be counted as a known force in Asia laying the foundation of many obtained medals and achievements after 1958. The new Iranian and Asian generation have a right to obtain a minimum information through an online encyclopedic source; such as Wikipedia, on the mentioned team and its participants, which many of them have also been Olympians. It should be mentioned that since the Iranian National TV Network does not broadcast any news or videos on previous or present Iranian Boxing, which is very unusual, the need of keeping this article is highlighted. There is no rational on why this article should not be kept. I disagree with Mohsen1248 since he has not given logical reasons for his claims which are his own point of view, and it seems that what he has mentioned could have personal, social, or biased opinionated motives or has resulted from a personal grudge towards the participants of the mentioned team or maybe lack of sufficient background knowledge on the mentioned team and Iranian Boxing history, as the mentioned team has contributed greatly to Iranian Boxing between 1955 and 1965, participating in many international tournaments, and also to future greater achievements. These could be mentioned in the article after expansion. Although it has been mentioned to keep this article, then it could also be merged with Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing depending on the administrators' decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faertompakandam (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing I haven't seen valid reasons to keep this as a separate article, but merging it makes sense to me.Jakejr (talk) 04:26, 8 August 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 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It is notable, but I see no particular reason why this needs its own article. I agree with Jakejr that the text can be added to Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games#Boxing. - Taketa (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iran_at_the_1958_Asian_Games This seems more consistent to me and will improve the boxing section of that article. Papaursa (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 15:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Haley[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting WP:MMANOT. According to Shedog (but not the article) only three professional fights (one a loss), none-top tier. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem good enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Orange Sphere (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources do you think show significant independent and non-routine coverage?Mdtemp (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. He has only 3 fights and none of them are top tier. Coverage is routine. Jakejr (talk) 04:31, 8 August 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 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA and none of the sources provide the significant independent reliable sourcing required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think previous delete voters nailed it.Mdtemp (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Your Body (Johnny Gaddaar song)[edit]

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

Proposing deletion. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. WP:PROD contested. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to fit to me. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:36, 5 August 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 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Gee[edit]

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

Article, is supported by mainly primary sources which does not conform with Wikipedia's notability standards. Needs better independent reliable sources, and if they can't be provided Delete. Stanleytux (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets criterias 2, 8, and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since Emmy Gee meets three criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Lastly, the artist's debut music video has more views on YouTube than establish artists like Ice Prince, AKA, Cassper Nyovest, M-Trill, Slim Burna, etc. Note: Some of the artists mentioned haven't even charted on any country's official music charts. Versace1608 (Talk) 15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 July 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) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a tricky one. I was indifferent about it until the inclusion of the 2014 Nigeria Entertainment Awards Best Diaspora Artist nomination, I'd give it a keep vote now. Darreg (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Am Giving it a keep vote as Darreg said~~ --Nicholas Nde (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nicholas Nde is a sock puppet of User:Coal Press Nation. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question You came to Wikipedia "today" to vote for this? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 13 August 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 06:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above - Passes WP:MUSICBIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed (Deep Dish album)[edit]

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

I believe this album fails WP:NALBUMS.

I can't find this album on musicbrainz [27] or discogs

Can't be notable if its not on either of those, no indication of chart position or sales Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merhe and redirect to Deep Dish (band). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 3 August 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) 14:55, 4 August 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 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoke Viswanathan[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 21:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable vanity autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs work but Google informs us he is notable per WP:BASIC. He has an entry in The Oxford companion to Indian theatre and other significant coverage. See, e.g., Times of India and Frontline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom MiracleMat (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given his inclusion in the oxford companion which states he has been awarded a number of national awards for film, and has directed at least two films which separately received mention in two reliable sources I believe this article passes the notability requirements. Seddon ^talk 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added some more information from the references above and this new one The Hindu. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added references prove his notability. From personal experience ( I hail from Kolkata where he is based), his works are intermittently covered in vernacular media.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG marginally and as Dwaipayan states there is coverage in the Bengali Language media.His website lists many Bengali films and Drama directed by him . Includes films like Sesh Sanghat starring Jaya Prada and Jackie Shroff the Times of India verifies it. Have added some references including his website.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Yamashita (actress)[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When the article was prodded in 2013 for being unreferenced, I removed the prod, stating "Not a valid reason for deletion. Older unreferenced BLPs are not deleted solely due to being unreferenced. If you searched for sources but couldn't find any, that would be a valid reason for deletion." I stand by that statement. Furthermore, since sources were presented in the previous AFD, just stating that the article is unsourced seems like an even more insufficient deletion rationale now that it did back before that AFD. Launchballer, have you reviewed the sources presented in the previous AFD? If you think the sources don't show notability or otherwise are insufficient to keep the article, then please give an expanded deletion rationale. Calathan (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being unreferenced is a very good reason to delete an article per WP:BLPPROD.--Laun chba ller 22:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely missed my point. BLPPROD was exactly the policy I was alluding to when I mentioned "Older unreferenced BLPs". BLPPROD policy was created after a big discussion, as a compromise position where newer BLPs would be deleted solely for being unreferenced, and older BLPs could not be deleted solely for being unreferenced. This BLP was created before March 18, 2010, so it cannot be deleted just for being unreferenced. In order for an older BLP to be deleted, it must meet some other criteria for deletion. Examples of reasonable criteria would be being unverifiable (i.e., having no sources that can be found, not merely no sources currently in the article), or being non-notable, or being an entirely negative unsourced BLP. You should consider the sources that were presented in the previous AFD, and either give another deletion rationale if you think they are insufficient, or consider adding them to the article yourself and withdrawing this AFD if you think they are sufficient. Calathan (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:NACTOR #1, per the sources presented in the previous AFD. Calathan (talk) 14:32, 6 August 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 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the absence of third-party sourcing and in-depth coverage, notability has not been adequately demonstrated here. --DAJF (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who found many of the sources during the first AfD (the result of which was keep), I should apologize for not inserting those references later. I just forgot to do that as I tackled other articles. But the fact still stands: she has had a solid career as a stage, film and TV actress and there are sources to prove that, enough to pass criterion 1 in WP:NACTOR. I have added some of these sources to the article. The main Asahi article, however, I don't have access to at this moment, and will have to add it later. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure that you do and don't forget again.

--Laun chba ller 08:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But given that you only cited the lack of sources when nominating this for deletion, do you have other reasons for continuing this nomination now that there are sources? Michitaro (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This can only be speedily kept if I withdrew with no outstanding delete votes. There are two. However, this will probably be kept in another couple of days.--Laun chba ller 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question had less to do with whether you wanted to withdraw the nomination than whether you have any other arguments for the nomination. Michitaro (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever.--Laun chba ller 11:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Werner[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. He's obviously notable to any Canadian who remembers when Canadian Isol was on the air. There's plenty of coverage of him from reputable sources like Maclean's and The Globe and Mail. These references just need to be incorporated. AfD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:52, 6 August 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 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

probably keep I don't think "unreferenced BLP" is a valid reason for deletion of a pre-BLPPROD article. The criterion is unreferenceable, or non-notable on the basis of what references can be found. It is wildly unlikely that someone with the sort of career described in popular music would not have some findable references if the information in the article is correct. A nomination should say what efforts have been made to look for one. I see it is referenced now, so the the only reason I'm not saying "keep" is because I am reluctant to judge in this subject area unless obvious, and it is not obvious to me that being a judge on Canadian Idol is intrinsic notability, and his presidency is of a division of EMI, not an independent company. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Also, the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gary Snyder. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist anarchism[edit]

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

Vague, tenuous, connecting sources in a synthetic manner, bulk of article is not sourced. Largely original research. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first paragraph of the "Dharma Bums" section and Redirect to Gary Snyder. He wrote a reasonably well-known essay by that title. For more explanation, see [34] which can be used as an RS for that paragraph. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that very brief essay is mentioned in the article, problem is, the discussion of the "concept" touched upon by Snyder, as presented in the article, is WP:OR.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that that the one single paragraph I mentioned can be sourced to the reference I provided and would thus not be OR. But I do not feel strongly about this if others disagree. Even if no content is merged, I think a redirect would still be warranted given the title of Snyder's essay but, somewhat in the spirit of the topic, it's all good. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - A classic example of an original essay, prohibited by WP:NOR.~~ Carrite (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gary Snyder. I didn't check the link supplied by IP 24.151... above. The 1961 essay by that title indicates that this isn't fully original research, but rather is Snyder's idea. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeh, sure, maybe everyone begins their introduction to the subject of buddhist anarchism by mentioning Snyder's name, but then they continue for another six paragraphs about the belief itself. Not to mention that Zenarchy links here, and if you look at that for sources :(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) you will see it is even more widely used, and should have been merged properly, as the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenarchy directed. Anarchangel (talk) 01:00, 12 August 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 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gary Snyder. I don't see enough sources in my searches for this article topic to warrant its own page, but I do see the phrase more associated with Snyder than not, and redirects are indeed cheap. The rest of the article is a whole lot of original conclusions. czar ♔ 06:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you do better than that? I am quite sure that, say, books, are more often associated with their authors than not. I surely hope that redirects are not quite that cheap. Anarchangel (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do better than what? "Buddhist anarchism" is not described in books/articles (gbooks, LexisNexis, JSTOR, ProQuest, Questia, etc.) as a concrete, separate philosophy. The phrase is associated with Snyder, so I recommended directing the phrase there. czar ♔ 02:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Be Heaven[edit]

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

Article has no sources, and the only reliable third-party source available giving much coverage is one article from The New York Times. Was PROD'd for failing WP:NFILMS, WP:GNG, and WP:V but was de-PROD'd without adding any references simply because of having "famous actors". After four years of no sources or much third-party coverage, it's time to delete this article as I find the de-PROD'ing reason to be unconvincing. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per coverage meeting WP:NF no matter who or why it was de-proded Snuggums. WP:BEFORE gives us sources. IE: Film Treat and others. It's not Star Wars, so coverage is not overwhelming, but the article is improvable, despite it being WP:NEGLECTED for so long. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm..... I'm not really sure how these sources are reliable, and the two "All Movie Guide" links are basically the same page. I'd say that All Movie Guide provides medium coverage of plot. Not exactly convinced this meets WP:NF, after searching for sources before putting up for AfD. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film Threat is a reliable source. Moria.co.nz is a one man blog, and it's definitely not reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, NinjaRobotPirate. Snuggums denying Film Threat is his issue. The 2 different pages (NOT "basically" the same page) at AMG are to verify cast and to verify release date(s) as required by WP:V. No more, no less. Am now looking through non-English coverage, as WP:BEFORE calls for more than a cursory look. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same page or not, multiple publications from a common source do not add to notability. I'll look at the NY Times article and see if it provides as much detail as Film Threat does. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 12:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-mandated verifiability of facts is not at all the same as notability, so please do not confuse the two. Per MOS:FILM, cast is allowed from the film's onscreen credits themselves, so if the release dates are not in contention, then the AMG citations can be removed. Since this had non-English releases under non-English titles, we would do well to also search for non-English coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this only seems to provide medium coverage as well (at least as far as English sources go). Unless there's significant non-English coverage, this doesn't warrant its own article as the only third-party English source providing significant coverage is Film Threat. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these sources don't look reliable to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, Stuartyeates, but why or how is it that Film Threat or The New York Times or All Movie Guide or TV Guide "don't look reliable" to you for what information they are usually and widely accepted as suitable for sourcing? Just curious. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 3 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 17:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Film Threat and TV Guide reviews, at least, suffice as substantive coverage in reliable sources. Certainly not the best-known film ever made but notable enough for our WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 5 August 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 06:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stan's Brewery[edit]

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

Non-notable local brewery. No reliable sources. Google and Google Books searches turned up nothing more than directory entries. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage, both in reviews of its beers and for its involvement in major case against mega-brewer Anheuser-Busch. Numerous articles in news database (not free) include:^[4]^[5]

^ http://nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=17803#.U_aoOLySyHs
^ http://books.google.com/books?id=EXHVTLms96oC&pg=PA252&dq=%22Legacy+internet%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=so7rU__PKoSayAT_soGQAQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Legacy%20internet%22&f=false
^ https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
^ Michael Skube, Staff writer (June 8, 1995). "Beers of distinction NOT JUST ANY BREW WILL DO: QUAFFERS SEEKING QUALITY ARE FILLING THEIR GLASSES WITH MICRO LAGERS AND ALES". The Atlanta Constitution. p. H1.
^ John R. Wilke and Bob Ortega (October 2, 1997). "Anheuser's Sales Practices Under Probe --- Justice Agency Investigates Charges Brewer Abuses Its Top Market Position". Wall Street Journal. p. A3.

I added a bit to the article. Improve, don't delete. --do ncr am 05:21, 30 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was unconvinced by the references added to the article (and re-cited above) because none of them carry links to the source - making it impossible to tell if there was significant coverage or a mere mention. However I was able to find a linkable LA Times story [35] which I added to the article. This brewery may be better known for its activism than for its beer, but that activism appears to have gotten it national recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 8 August 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 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abby in Wonderland[edit]

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

Deproded without reason, Non-notable direct-to-video film part of a larger franchise, propose deletion or redirection BOVINEBOY2008 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I do not see an independent notability from the franchise, and there are no sources proving such notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 12 August 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 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find a decent review at DVD Verdict... here. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Business Solutions (CBS)[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about an IT company. I am unable to find sufficient sources to establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 12:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 17:10, 4 August 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 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arid Forest Research Institute. While more discussion here would have been ideal, after two relistings consensus in this very short discussion is to merge. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFRI Model Nursery[edit]

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

Not notable enough. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 17:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's an obvious merge to Arid Forest Research Institute. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 5 August 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 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with User:DGG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National College of Computer Sciences (Gujranwala)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this college exists. The official webpage doesn't work, nor does the usa.edu link. If I search on the usa.edu page for Gujranwala it doesn't come up. Google doesn't find anything, so if it does exists it fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like this was a side branch of University of South Asia, Lahore, possibly shut down since. Closest thing I could find was an advertisement looking for faculty in March 2013.[36] LionMans Account (talk) 16:01, 29 July 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:32, 5 August 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 06:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure, but [37] appears to be the correct home page link for this institution. If this is true, I believe all higher education institutions are considered notable? JulesH (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technetics Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:47, 5 August 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 06:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 02:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jarvis (author)[edit]

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

I have reviewed the external links and references in this article and found them to be questionable: Reference 1 is a book review by a staff writer at Forbes. Reference 2 is a link to blog posts that Paul Jarvis has posted. Reference 3 implies that Adobe endorses or is somehow related to Paul Jarvis. Reference 3 also appears to be a blog NOT hosted by Adobe. Reference 4 is also a blog.

External link 1 takes you to a podcast interview (that I did not listen to) with Paul Jarvis. External link 2 is a blog hosted by someone interviewing Paul Jarvis. External link 3 takes you to a blog and a post about Paul Jarvis. External link 4 takes you to the website of Paul Jarvis where he states: “My newest articles are sent to my newsletter first, then tend to show up on Inc., Fast Company, The Huffington Post, Forbes,Lifehacker, The Next Web, Smashing Magazine, Adobe’s 99u and many more quality publications. There are already 10,000+ intelligent and attractive folks signed up.” I didn't find any articles in the publications he listed except for a self-published book review with Forbes. I question the notability of this living person and the lack of reputable sources.On his website he says that he has authored four best-selling books. These books are self-published and I have no way to determine whether or not they are best-sellers. I checked amazon… one book was ranked 45,344. This is not my definition of a best-seller. bpage (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article creator has edited only two pages, both related to Jarvis. No notable references. LaMona (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- I am the one who researched all the references and external links. bpage (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: are you !voting"delete" on your own deletion nomination? You may comment all you want, but only one !vote per customer. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a relatively new, new-article reviewer and didn't realize that tagging the article was the same as 'voting' against it. You taught me something that I didn't know before. Thank you, friend. I spent about a half an hour researching this guy and I hope that he gets what he deserves - deletion. bpage (talk) 03:59, 13 August 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 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to suggest that he passes either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. (But a PROD might have saved time.) PamD 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ref 3 is from the 99U blog from Behance: "s a network of sites and services specializing in self-promotion", to quote the WP article. He seems to be a self-published author and non-notable blogger. Enough said. PamD 14:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable blogger and author. Per WP:AUTHOR. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is indeed difficult to justify even a redirect whilst the school does not ectually exist Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neumann Classical School[edit]

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

The school has not even opened so it cannot be notable see WP:NOT Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 July 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) 03:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yonkers, New York#Education - The article is about a private K-8 school. Most schools that only serve primary education are not notable for Wikipedia unless they have a special claim to notability. In this case, I do not see this claim to notability, and there is the fact that the school has not opened. The common outcome for primary school nominations is to merge/redirect the article. The Education section of Yonkers, New York seems like a good place for this information about a planned school. —Mz7 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect may make sense. Or a delete. But contrary to what the implication is in Outcomes, deletes are more common than merges (though redirects are much more common than deletes). Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason it isn't as commonly applied as other outcomes is because there is almost always relevant information already present at the target of the redirect. (For example, if it were a public school within a school district, the school district article may already mention the school, and only a plain redirect would suffice.) In this case, there isn't any information at the merge target, and it wouldn't make sense to redirect this title to a location that doesn't even mention Neumann Classical School. Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at many of our school AfDs and redirects over the past few years, and the most common redirect is to a page that does nothing more than reflect the name of the school as being in that location. Often, the target does not have that information beforehand, and it is created as part of the redirect process. Merge I've seen very rarely -- far more rarely than delete, which has in fact been a much more common Outcome ... though less common than redirect. Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York if the school becomes notable once it has opened it can get its own article Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination assertion that "The school has not even opened so it cannot be notable" is incorrect. It might be unusual, but if there is plenty of reliable coverage in advance, a proposed school could indeed meet wp:GNG and deserve a wikipedia article. Like for movies that have not yet begun filming, the standard is that those are not likely to be notable, unless indeed there is a ton of reliable coverage. --do ncr am 01:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As far as it goes. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 8 August 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 06:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is this school not notable, it hasn't even opened yet and its opening is not scheduled for at least another year, plus the fact that this is a low and middle school only, it should be deleted without a redirect, and only recreated as a redirect when its existence and operation can be proven. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Torchmark. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America[edit]

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

The company is not notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 30 July 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) 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company Torchmark. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability for this marketing subsidiary. There are also individual articles on each of the other Torchmark#Subsidiaries; unless these have evidence of individual notability, they seem ripe to follow this one to AfD after a decision here. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Torchmark as it's roughly mentioned twice there, Perhaps Torchmark should also be renamed to Torchmark Corporation?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:29, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pun Films[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations. They are few passing mentions, but they are just not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article on the subject. Subject qualifies deletion in accordance with Wikipedia deletion policy for failing notability. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Yep, another case of failing GNG and NCORP. United States Man (talk) 03:41, 29 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:44, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trials of Death[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added some reviews, plus it looks like it did get a VOYA review. ([38]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 2 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 5 August 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 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Gold[edit]

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

I couldn't really find anything past page one on google, this seems to fail WP:BIO. Jab843 (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

she has enough credits to be worthy of inclusion in my opinion, more than some articles that have been given a pass. She has a supporting role in the upcoming film Birdman which is going to be big. HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardworking character actor (not a star-type), numerous credits on Broadway, TV, film, worked with biggies (Naomi Watts, Cynthia Nixon, Sidney Lumet). Meets WP:GNG with sources like this interview with her and this one plus numerous other mentions in NY Times, Playbill. She gets good reviews (if short) in the Village Voice. She was interviewed on the red carpet. Notable actress.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 6 August 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 06:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Tom - Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Jeanne Morrow[edit]

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

Written like a resume, this person is relatively senior within Cisco but that doesn't make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recreation of a page already deleted: "Nick-D (talk | contribs) deleted page Monique Jeanne Morrow (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): No clear claim of notability or references attesting to this)" (see log). I agree with the nom that this article has promotional, CV-ish, non-encyclopedic tone and fails to justify WP:N/WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 5 August 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 06:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - [39] has significant coverage and may be marginally reliable. We need multiple source and the others do not qualify. I didn't find anything usable on Google News or Highbeam. ~KvnG 02:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conducive Isocracy[edit]

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

Non-notable term coined by a book's author. No evidence from Google of use by anyone but him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it is not a real thing, it was just written by one person. Spumuq (talk) 10:29, 11 August 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 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No relevant secundary sources. Article states it is a phrase coined by author, yet the only source is by the author. -- Taketa (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is spam masquerading as original research about a phrase made up just last year. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The fact that it was created by a SPA whose username is User:Qrusader indicates that this is a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. WP:OR being perhaps the main reason, essentially the word is a springboard into the futzy futzy world of POV. Also possibly WP:NEOLOGISM.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemite Sam (shortwave)[edit]

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

No evidence of sources or notability Geogene (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 09:19, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between Floors[edit]

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

non-notable film with non-notable director and cast. found one reliable references [40] but nothing past that. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary - Between Floors was a ho hum art film directed by Jen White who felt she was the next Lena Dunham. While the movie played at a number of minor film festivals and even picked up awards there, it failed to play at a film festival of substance. Between her investors have since developed cold feet and the lack of product from Jen White since(partially for her general refusal to associate with anyone that had different political views from her) it can be argued that she isn't a relevant figure but Just another product of the "Austin Film Scene." Carbonflyer (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 09:20, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khashayar Karimian[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Article contains little claim to notability as an academic. Google Scholar has several results but mainly as a co-author, and on the most-cited papers not even first listed co-author. Michig (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unsourced BLP and found nothing about him on the web other than from social networking sites. And some sites claim that he died at the age of 4.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQ Editor (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 5 August 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 06:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Awad Sayaf Alhabiri[edit]

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

The subject is one of a huge group of enemy combatants captured and then detained for an extended period of time, part of an even larger general trend over the years of capturing and detaining enemy fighters. Nothing about him sticks out above the rest, just much more documentation developed on such people in the last 20 years, but even at that there is not enough to make him stand out and be justified in having a stand-alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:BIO1E Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks "significant" coverage in RS per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not suggesting that all detainees are notable per se, Mishal al-Harbi has been the subject of significant coverage satisfying WP:BASIC. See, e.g., Episode at Guantanamo Leaves Family at a Loss and Life After Guantanamo . More sources are no doubt available in Arabic. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 09:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting to enable more input per sources provided in the keep !vote above.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The references cited by 24.151.10.165 would seem to be (just barely) enough to satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W C Dons[edit]

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

Sounds like a non notable club that has now closed. Tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. Gbawden (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 09:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think there's sufficient coverage to pass the GNG, and certainly there are insufficient reliable sources. BethNaught (talk) 06:10, 11 August 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 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't really seem like there's anything worth merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VPN-1 VSX NGX[edit]

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

Non notable software package, tagged for notability since 2008, lets make a decision either way. Alternatively we could redirect but who on earth would search for VPN-1 VSX NGX I don't know Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Interesting that there's a heavily-advertised online course for this software, but I'm not seeing anything in the way of reviews or discussion of the software itself. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:09, 6 August 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 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge too VPN-1. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VNIIS Exemption Letter[edit]

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

Still trying to work out what on earth this is about. Non notable, a case of WP:NOTHOW or WP:NOTMANUAL Gbawden (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 09:26, 5 August 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 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't believe the nomination and the one redirect comment are enough to suffice action. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Moose (cyclecar)[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:Notability guidelines. Because there is already an extensive article dedicated to cyclecars and the Baby Moose is already mentioned in that article, this subject is sufficiently covered without its own article. Furthermore, the sources provided do not indicate that this particular cyclecar is, on its own, notable. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cyclecar. Andrew³²⁷ 13:51, 6 August 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 06:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to either delete or redirect. Sandstein 07:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Nicolino[edit]

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

Article had been mistakenly created in project space. As requested in the MfD discussion, I have moved to article space and have opened an AfD instead. Notability is the issue. Safiel (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LA Shrinks. The most substantial coverage I could find was this LA Daily News article. There's some other coverage about her in the context of coverage about LA Shrinks likethis LA Times review of the show. It's not enough for me to say an independent article is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect to LA Shrinks seems good to me. I certainly think we should not have a red link but the present BLP and the sources I have found look very weak. If anyone wanted to expand a bit at the target article, that would be fine. Thincat (talk) 16:55, 10 August 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 06:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since there are sufficient references showing Nicolino as a subject is independent of the show (she appeared on CNN, other TV shows, writes for Huffington Post, etc). In-depth multiple reliable independent nontrivial sources such as here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere. Pop culture topic, unfortunately, weirdness of the mass media is distorting all kinds of stuff, turning therapy into entertainment, but that's life, she meets GNG. One of many TV junk shows that I will never watch when there is always a better show on my computer.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered extensively in reliable and independent sources. Satisfies GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a personality covered by the media, not just in the context of her show. Frmorrison (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ♔ 01:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Khodro[edit]

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

This article, believe it or not, has been around since 2006. I declined a speedy delete on the article (A7), although I'm not sure why. I could see the article had been vandalized. Perhaps that influenced me. It had zero sources, but with some difficulty, I managed to find the company's website. The template says the company doesn't exist anymore, which is why I used the past tense in the first sentence (I did some copy editing, too), but I'm not sure that's true. There isn't much out there on the article, but because it's Iranian, it's possible I just can't find it. So, I leave it to the community. Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is historically accurate. Although the company may not exist anymore the claims in the article are authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.172.104 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found these: Indian Express, MEED, Pakistand and Gulf Economist. I would guess that there is Iranian coverage out there although it may be hard to find outside Iran. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 5 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 09:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Article needs work, but is of interest and note as a car company from a country that is not well known for car production. Warren (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate the work that's been done to improve the article. I really don't care what the outcome is of the nomination as I figure it's a win-win situation. I do have one question for those who have now looked more closely at the company. Is the company still operating or is it, as was originally claimed, defunct? It'd be good to get that rather basic question right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 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 06:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: article is now in decent shape after Warren's great edits. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Cap Marine Towing and Salvage[edit]

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

Despite the local newspaper articles I have my doubts about the notability of this company Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So it's a small, local, business - most marine salvage businesses are local, given their nature. The article meets the requirements of WP:GNG: Clearly has the multiple sources required by WP:SECONDARY, and two sources comply with WP:AUD, if you accept that the New York Times is a national paper, not a local paper. There's nothing about the article that causes it to fall under WP:NOT. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the problem is that the NYTimes article is (quite clearly) from the "N.Y. / Region" section of the paper. It benefits from the rigorous editorial standards of the NYTimes but it is unquestionably local in focus. In that context, the NYTimes is the same as any other local or regional paper covering subjects of interest to locals. It's disingenuous to suggest that local coverage of a local subject is "international" or "national" in that context. The NBC source doesn't even mention the subject - it mentions the owner in the context of an article that couldn't possibly be considered significant coverage of the subject in any context. There's clearly not enough for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the first half of this reasoning isn't consistent with WP:AUD which states that regional sources are acceptable. Besides, NY/Region, essentially the tristate area, covers a population of around 20 million people, bigger than many countries. WP:CORPDEPTH is a somewhat circular standard to use as it simply demands "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" - i.e. if you can write a decent article on the subject from secondary sources, it passes! Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. There would be thousands of "Mum and Dad" businesses that have received one-off coverage in the locally-focused regional sections of international papers; those businesses that just happen to be located in regions serviced by international papers - Greater Chicago and the Chicago Tribune, the Sydney Metropolitan Area and the Daily Telegraph, Greater London and the Guardian. Surely your not suggesting that a 3-person business can circumvent WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH if they once (ever) received coverage in the local news section of an international paper. That's absolutely not the spirit or intent of that section and I think you know it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little more digging and found that they were briefly cited in the WSJ too, again under "NY Region", which suggests that the print article was in the new "Greater New York Area" section of the Journal (unlike the Times, the WSJ doesn't give page refs on the webpage). The fact is that the business has attracted a lot of major media attention. Probably this is because it's a generally interesting business. Possibly it's because they have hired a PR flack with exceptionally good contacts. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Greetings to you in Australia, by the way - they only have "Mum and Dad" businesses in the fair land of Oz, so you must be from the lucky country! Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My regional idioms must be showing. Yes, you're absolutely right. C'mon, though, there's no way the company has "attracted a lot of major media attention". They got one article in the local section of the NYTimes and passing mentions (some of which don't even mention the name of the company) in some other press. They do interesting work. Interesting does not equal notable. Again, are we really suggesting that local businesses that receive local coverage that happens to be in an international paper meet WP:CORPDEPTH? That was never the intention of that guideline and its a subversion of policies like WP:GNG which are clearly intended to include genuinely notable companies of interest, not companies like this. But hey, you're allowed to interpret policy any way you like. Let's leave it to consensus to decide. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article and I continue to think the firm merits inclusion. The criteria for inclusion is not whether we personally find a topic interesting, or think it is important. The basic criteria of GNG is whether references found it notable. I believe the firm measures up to that standard.

Ive written about this before, the time when I attended what I thought would be a really boring talk on the middle ages, that turned out to be fascinating. First the historian spoke about how we knew practically nothing about the everyday life of ordinary people during the middle ages, because those who were literate found their everyday lives so commonplace it never occurred to them to document it, and most aspects of the everyday lives of ordinary people was literally beneath notice, de facto invisible. He then spoke about analyzing the transcript made by monks who sat beside the torturers, during the inquisition. He had come across a cache of these transcripts, and they had answered many questions.

Today, we are oblivious to much that is around us, information that really is worth documenting, worthy of a standalone wikipedia article, like this firm. Yes, the largest salvage firm in the USA mertis a standalone article. And when a smaller firm, like this one, has been covered in multiple articles, on multiple occasions, for multiple reasons, I suggest it to meets the criteria for inclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 7 August 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 06:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Geo Swan and Flachra10003. --do ncr am 12:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 St. Joseph, Michigan. Sandstein 07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Festival along St. Joseph River[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, lets make a decision either way. Written like an advert, I don't believe this event is notable, even though it has been going for a while, it sounds very much like a local event Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cursory search finds little more than the one source. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is out of date, since the festival was cancelled after the 2011 edition [41] and has now, apparently, been terminated permanently.[42][43] Many local sources and a few non-local sources apparent in Google searches (see the second "find sources" link above), and this seems to have been a big (and controversial) event in the city (for example, a 2001 article called it "the region's biggest social event" [44] and its significance is described here [45]). I'm not yet decided whether I think there's enough coverage to justify a separate article; if not, there might be room for more content about the festival in the main St. Joseph, Michigan article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to St. Joseph, Michigan article per Arxiloxos's reasoning. It was of mostly local interest. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 13 August 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 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! · ✉ 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Pierce[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are all minor in nature and include press releases, blogs, mention in lists and interviews. Lacks secondary references. Fails notability and associated guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an athlete, he was an NCAA Champion (both individual and team), a member of the U.S. National Team, and a gold medalist at a major international competition. As an entrepreneur, he has founded/co-founded two multi-million dollar companies. OriginateX (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)OriginateX[reply]

Comment - Please explain how does this meet the criteria in WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BIO? reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The #1 criteria in WP:NCOLLATHis a notable national award. Pierce won the 200 butterfly at the NCAA National Swimming Championships (the highest individual award in that sport), as well as gold and bronze medals in the 1999 World University Games in Barcelona. These are individual awards that are independent of team success where his teams also won the highest awards (NCAA Division I National Title). To comply with #3, he was also mentioned by name in coverage of the 1998 NCAAs via multiple sources that he did not control. [[46]],[[47]],[[48]] He was also named in multiple articles at the World University Games by SwimmingWorld (the largest publication for swimming and diving in the world) including a specific mention of how Pierce rallied from 2 seconds behind in the butterfly leg to guide the US to gold over Japan and Russia. [[49]],[[50]]TechCoast (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast[reply]

Comment - Winning an event is not the same as winning an award. (e.g., Cy Young Award or Heisman Trophy) The coverage is routine in nature. There is no compliance with #3, this is not "national media attention", there are no in-depth articles about him, just routine coverage. The www.swimmingworldmagazine.com coverage are trivial mentions of the individual. Far from in-depth coverage of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added new article from "Built in LA" (another project emphasizing LA entrepreneurs)^[1] - a longer article with many quotes from Pierce about O Labs and Versus that's almost entirely about thought process and issues around entrepreneurship and company creation - not a press release. Also re-added article from Variety. Expecting an feature in Forbes later this month. The company, and Pierce's role in creating it, are becoming more notable.OriginateX (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) OriginateX[reply]

Comment - Blogs are not considered to be independent sources. reddogsix (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To RedDogSix's point, it's possible that no single accomplishment passes the notability threshold, but taken together, a very successful college athlete (NCAA Champion) who has started two companies that have been written up in notable publications (LA Times, Hollywood Reporter, Reuters) seems to warrant inclusion. TechCoast (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast[reply]

Comment - Unforgettably, the coverage referenced by TechCoast is trivial in nature. Winning an event is not the same as winning an award. (e.g., Cy Young Award or Heisman Trophy) The coverage is routine in nature. There is no compliance with #3, this is not "national media attention", there are no in-depth articles about him, just routine coverage. The www.swimmingworldmagazine.com coverage are trivial mentions of the individual. Far from in-depth coverage of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 13:41, 5 August 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 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a bit surprised that WP:NSPORT doesn't include a specific guideline for swimming. But the US colleges have long dominated competitive swimming, attracting the top athletes from around the world. Winning an NCAA individual championship IMO clearly evidences a high level of notability. By comparison, NSPORT does include a specific guideline for track and one of the inclusion criteria is: "Has won their country's senior national championship ..." Can't imagine why an NCAA championship in track would suffice, but not in swimming. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the absence of specific notability guidelines for swimmers, I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming seeking input from those who deal with such issues more regularly. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although I voted above, so Keep Continued). A new article came out in Forbes today with a lengthy interview of Pierce regarding his "looking for ugly" theory on investing in/incubating startups. ^[2] This is more interview/feature piece than press release and Forbes is a credible, non-trivial source. TechCoast (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)TechCoast[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wardman[edit]

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

He is associated with acts that are notable, but he lacks the significant coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to maintain a belief that this editor is acting in WP:Good Faith, which is made more difficult after they have gone out of their way to AFD another article on which I have worked (here is the first [51], which itself is a second attempt, after a Speedy was declined by someone else), for spurious reasons. This is highly WP:POINTY, to say the least. At any rate, this is another stub that they have AFD'd, which has everything sourced. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any vendetta against you, as you are suggesting. The only issue I have is that this subject fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, suspicions aside for now, I have added additional references and facts to the article about Wardman's production career.Echoedmyron (talk)

I'm still not seeing anything that satisfies WP:GNG. The associated acts are notable, but that doesn't make him notable by association. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This musician/producer/composer is obviously notable, IMO, but the article is a stub and needs expanding. Tchaliburton, I'm sorry, but I have to ask, did you try at all to fix or help this article before nominating it for deletion? That is the first step in WP:DEL-CONTENT. The only edit I see from you in the edit history of the article is this nomination. Just look at his list of credits in AllMusic:[52]. Wardman meets the criteria as the composer for Falling (Blue Peter album) as given in WP:COMPOSER. He also meets notability under WP:CREATIVE, criterion #1. And IMO, he also satisfies WP:MUSBIO as producer of a certified gold album. This stuff just needs a few cits. The appropriate action has been taken - classifying it as a stub. Echoedmyron, can you expand this article and maybe source it a little more? He appears to be all over the Canadian music industry, and very notable. This article only needs a few cits to support that. Any professional Canadian (or other?) music writers you can quote? Dcs002 (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:MUSBIO apply to producers? I didn't think that it did, but maybe I'm mistaken. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSBIO does not explicitly say so, which is why I specified that as my opinion. However, in the biz, the producer it regarded as the one responsible for the final product, and a recipient along with the band, of the award. (I don't know if it's that way in Canada though.) But look at the big picture - he did produce a gold album, and he has produced and performed with multiple notable acts. He meets notability in at several ways without needing the producer route, even if as a composer alone of a notable album. Certainly that AltMusic review is RS for independent media coverage from a staff music writer. I haven's seen the Billboard cit yet, but the guy needs to be notable to merit a stub, regardless of the proff. (Again, irem 7 has to preceed item 8 in WP:deletion - he sure seems notable, but the thorough search hasn't yet been done yet, so we can't say he lacks notability just now and therefore deletion is not indicated. Notability and proof of notability are separate issues. This seems to me pretty open & shut, but that's my one voice. Dcs002 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echoedmyron, here is a quote from Roch Parisien in his review for AllMusic: "Producer Chris Wardman pulls off a neat coup in working Danny Greaves' commanding lead vocals to the forefront..." That's online here: http://www.allmusic.com/album/mclaren-furnace-room-mw0000102671 That's a good reliable source for notability. From Dcs002 - I forgot to sign this one earlier. Dcs002 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 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 15:35, 5 August 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 05:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As Bejnar points out, the "keep" opinions convincingly argue that this was a historically significant event, but they mostly do not address the reason advanced for deletion, which is a lack of sources establishing notability in Wikipedia's terms (WP:N). Therefore I must give the "keep" opinions less weight. This very short article might fit as a section in Zaporozhian Cossacks; it can be restored for the purpose of merging the content there. Sandstein 07:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

500th Anniversary of the Zaporozhian Cossacks[edit]

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

WP:1E IMO - This was a once off anniversary, although I am sure there will be a 600th. Although the Cossacks are notable I don't see how this celebration was notable Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event was significant in the fact that during Soviet times, such celebrations of Ukrainian statehood were banned, where even the use of the Ukrainian national flag was banned. The Soviet Union was a tightly controlled society, so a large social movement within its borders is highly significant. It was not a parade that just occurred in one specific city--it was conducted all throughout Ukraine with the support of a major national political party which pushed for the independence of Ukraine from the USSR. This is a highly notable event in early Ukrainian post-USSR statehood. § DDima 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major public expressions of Ukrainianness in the closing years of the USSR have rather obvious notability, in the light of Kravchuk's 1991 decision to go for independence. It is also significant that major events were held in the streets in Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhe, which are in the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine. Note also that the source for the article is a magazine article published in Donetsk in 2009 - i.e. people 19 years later thought it was significant enough to write about.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page 135 of The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia vol 1, discusses the way the event was handled in the press at the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficient sourcing to show that it is a notable event of itself outside of the cause of Ukrainian independence. Content probably belongs under Ukrainian independence, Ukrainian Popular Front, or the Zaporozhian Cossacks article itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:23, 30 July 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 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to People's Movement of Ukraine. There is not much to be said about it, and it won't distort the People's Movement of Ukraine article. Not enough for a standalone article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:57, 13 August 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 05:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Listed at WikiProject Ukraine. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event was significant enough to have its own article as Toddy1 & DDima have shown. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was a huge event that involved great number of people across the whole Ukrainian SSR and greatly contributed to the drive for the Ukrainian sovereignty in 1990s. Cossacks were primarily notable for shaping the Ukrainian identity. The article needs to be expanded, there is enough information at its Ukrainian counterpart. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of these keep votes are addressing the importance of the event and not the lack of coverage. I don't dispute the importance of the event, just the need for a stand-alone article given the lack of coverage. Historically, it rates about one sentence, maybe two. Wikipedia is not news. The role of cossacks in shaping the Ukrainian identity is not appropriately addressed in this type of specific article, but elsewhere in a more general article. Please address keeping (or deleting) the article in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --Bejnar (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has 1 reference, and about 2 sentences. It doesn't meet GNG or this policy, so I'm going to vote delete. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Speedy Keep. Natg 19 (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBN Act[edit]

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

Merge and delete. Unless someone can expand this article with more information about the CBN Act. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below. Natg 19 (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Satisfies GNG. There is plenty of coverage to be found in GBooks and elsewhere. I strongly suspect that there is also a lot of undigitised material in Nigerian libraries. The chances of the piece of legislation establishing the central bank of any large country being non-notable are exactly nil. Please note that this Act is also referred to as the Central Bank of Nigeria Act (which is probably its real name), the Central Bank Act, the Central Bank of Nigeria Ordinance, the CBN Ordinance, and possibly by other expressions (eg citation by year and number). I should also point out that AfD isn't an appropriate venue to propose the merger of an article that is obviously a plausible redirect. I don't think that any valid rationale for deletion has been advanced, since the criticism of this article appears to be that it was short. James500 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 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 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:James500. The coverage of countries' legislative structuring should be expanded not removed. AllyD (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swiss Air Force. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Puma Display Team[edit]

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

Single aircraft used for military displays are rarely notable and not that uncommon. Most air forces have at least one and sometimes many solo display aircraft that appear at air shows and displays. As an aside, a single helicopter is unlikely to be aerobatic and certain not a "team". Contested PROD MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no need to delet this page, only because it is performed whit one aircraft, and it can be done with any of the swiss air force Superpumas or Cougars. It is a official Team of the swiss Air Force since years and shown every year inside and outside switzerland. It matches to the category like this = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_T%C3%BCrk

Also if it should not fit to the category "Aerobatic teams" is no need to delet it, it can still stand in the category "Swiss Air Force".

I am the opinien that there is no need to delet it and still have it as own page in the Swiss Air Force category because the Swiss air Force it self see the Super Puma Display Team as an equal Team to the other teams of the Swiss air Force, like PC-7 Team, Patrouille Suisse,. Please have a look at the Swiss Air Force Page about the Super Puma display Team [53] Flight patern of Superpuma Display = http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/verbaende/einsatz_lw/kunstflugteam/superpuma/teil.html Program (see for eg. Superpuma at RAF Tatto Waddington http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/aktuell/airshows.html

This are my points against deleting it.

On the other hand i like to rise the question: If single aircraft used for military displays dosent fit into the category Aerobatic teams, would it not bee good to create a category for them? ther are quite a few single aircraft "Teams" who are since years part of airshows (Ramex Delta (2 French M2000), Solo Türk (F-16) ,Belgian Air Component F-16 Solo Display Team, Rafale solo Display Team [54] HAF Demo Team [55] and so one. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The Super Puma Display Team fly not onlysolo, it fly a few times also together with the PC-7 Team [56] FFA P-16 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has to do with the Swiss Air Force, it is one of the official Display Teams for the Swiss Air Force. It's a differend if an Air Force just shows a aircraft on an airshow with flying a few rounds or if ther is shown a whol programm from pilots. please have a look at the links i put in by the discusion (BTW also with the picture search you see this exist since a long time,and is an Importent part of the Swiss Air Force [57] So it should at least still exist in the Swiss air Force category]

- Categorisation is irrelevant; notability is. Your arguments seem to make the case for a Swiss Air Force display teams article for them all, not for individual articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, non-notable, no third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushranger, The Patrouille Suisse and PC-7 Team are already both own pages and fit in the category I don't think it made much sens to put the all in one page or create a page with all 4 teams and have still seperat pages for the ps and pc-7 Team. A new category for single Aircraft display teams would not only bee for this two, it would also bee for the Solo Türk, the Greek Solodisplay and much more, I think it would be interesting to have them to on wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force. FLORAKO (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC) User is a confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V • Talk 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have add 3-party refs[58] [59] FFA P-16 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 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 05:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Swiss Air Force for now. The issue as far as I can tell is simply one of notability and it seems like the subject should be notable. But for whatever reason I'm having trouble finding enough in depth coverage from reliable secondary and tertiary sources to ring the N Bell. Only one of the cited sources passes RS and that just isn't enough. Am open to reconsideration if additional RS sources are found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous display team of the Swiss Air Force. The request started with the strange arguement that it is "certain not a team". Grammar aside, the article lists all current pilots of the team by name... --Kreteglobi (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the not a team was related to the fact the article presented a single Super Puma as an Aerobatic Team, which was clearly wrong. I have removed the list of current pilots as it is not really encyclopedic, although it does give an indication that the "team" is fairly ad-hoc and doesnt have a dedicated display pilot like other solo display aircraft. I cant see any evidence of fame, most air forces take examples of current aircraft and display them and the references indicate that but hardy raise the level to famous, clearly notable Patrouille Suisse doesnt even make that claim. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne The Swiss Air Force declar it clearly as a Team equal to the Patrouille Suiss and PC-7 Team, this are not just some Pilots who made some flights in front of the public Ad -hoc. This Pilots stay at the team for a few years and only the Pilots of the Team do these shows, all other swiss air force helicopter pilots don't fly such shows. By the PC -/team also not all members are flying at a show, you have the commander, 2 speakers and a spare pilot. The super Puma Team is performing now since many years inside and outside switzerland at air shows it is ntable like the patrouille suisse. If dosent fit in the Aerobatic Team category it is still importetn enough for the Swiss Air Force category. A other thing ist to restore the Hornet Display Page and merge them together to a Swiss Air Force Solo Display Team page. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you cant restore the Hornet Display Page as the community has decided it is not notable, and both the Hornet and Super Puma are covered in the Swiss Air Force article so it is unlikely that we have enough material for a separate Swiss Air Force Solo Display Team article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lacks sourcing at the moment to meet GNG. The only independent source cited is a Swiss newspaper article for which the sum total of its coverage is (via google translate): "Spectacular is the flight demonstration of the Super Puma Display Team. The specially trained pilots show with their performance dynamics and a portion of the capabilities of the Super Pumas. For this purpose, they fly a normal Super Puma or Cougar, which is commonplace in use. Optimize their round eight minute program for each of the geographical and meteorological conditions at the film screenings." GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of the discussion on here seems to be ignoring the only issue that matters, that being notability. At present the article does not pass WP:GNG for want of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Until that changes, all of the other discussion is neither here nor there.

Reply That is not actually true. What N actually says is that a topic which satisfies GNG is presumed to be notable. N does not say that a topic that fails GNG is inherently non-notable, or even that it is presumed to be non-notable. GNG does not work in reverse. The idea that it does is a persistent but complete misconception. The implication is that a topic which fails GNG is nevertheless notable if there is sufficient local consensus that it is "worthy of notice" (a concept that is not ultimately defined). I should also point out that there is a template at the top of N which warns that it is only a guideline and is likely to have exceptions. James500 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore GNG itself does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. Nor does it provide a meaningful definition of "significant coverage". The canonical example of insignificant coverage is a single sentence. The level of coverage in this case is actually several times greater than that. James500 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are exceptions to N. IAR and COMMONSENSE both come to mind. My view of those exceptions however may be summed up in the memorable words of one of our former presidents (on a different subject). I believe that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. In my experience that would seem to be the consensus in the community. With respect to your interpretation of GNG, again I'd have to say that if almost everyone else disagrees with you, then your view might be outside community consensus. Your suggestion that a single sentence might be sufficient to meet the standards for coverage in GNG is one that I feel fairly confident is not consistent with consensus. And yes, GNG does state that multiple (as in more than one) sources is required. It repeatedly employs the world "sources" which is the plural form of the word "source." That's pretty clear to me. But all of this is not terribly important on this particular discussion as I see nothing that would remotely justify an IAR KEEP for this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I did not suggest that a single sentence would suffice. I suggested that several sentences might suffice. (2) GNG says that multiple sources are "generally" required. The word "generally" means "in most cases" (Compact OED). It does not mean "in all cases". It could mean "in 50%+1 of all cases" and that is how I think it should be construed. (3) Keeping a topic that fails GNG does not necessarily involve invoking IAR. It is allowed by the wording of N if there is consensus that the topic is worthy of notice. James500 (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of GNG and notability requirements is I think, outside of established consensus within the community. That doesn't make your opinion illegitimate. Point in fact I too have a few areas of deep disagreement with community consensus. If you dig around you might run into one or more of my rants against the near carte blanche presumption of notability extended to high schools and colleges. But it is what it is. I am in a small minority and I understand that. Which is one reason I usually avoid those articles and related AfD discussions. In any event if you want to make an argument to keep this I will happily look at it. I try to keep an open mind, but I am afraid I don't agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say it agiant the Swiss Air Force see this (and the Hornet Display) as an team equal to the PS and PC-7 Team. The Team exist aporx since 10 years. It performs every year shows in solo or together wit other teams of of the swiss air force So it is definitiv important enoug to exist in the Swiss Air Force category. We have the (official Federal!) Page of the Swiss Air Force as referenc, but we have also the Homepage of the Superpuma Team itself, we have the Facebook page of it, we have it also on the hermankeist page. We have the DVD of the Superpuma Team, ther are many clips on youtube. In my eys this is proof enoug. *Swiss Air Force. "Super Puma Display Team" in German

DVD "Super Puma Air Display [60]
Herman Keist Super Puma Display Team
PC-7 Team und Super Pumas über Beromünster (in German), Luzerner Zeitung, 25 April 2014
Super Puma Display Team Homepage german
[61] youtube Clip Super Puma Display Team with Cougar at AFB Dübendorf
Super Puma Display Team on Facebook.
Badge of the Team
Badge
Super Puma Display (and Hornet Display) at the AIR14 Eery day

FFA P-16 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC) @MilborneOne, No the Swiss Air Force Page dosen't cover the SUperpuma Team and it dosent not cover the Hornet Display. It says nothing sonce when it exist, it doesnt say something about the relation aircraft to the pilot's sqd. You are right that this page is now deleted but this does not exclude the possibility to create one single page for the Swiss Air Force single display Teams. Also I don't se why the Solo Türk can exist but the ones from the Swiss Air Force not. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ STILL Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force.Like I said in the first round of this talk.FLORAKO (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate !vote. You are free to comment as often as you like in the discussion but we !vote only once. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that, bearing in mind the nature of this topic, the coverage provided by the Swiss newspaper cited above is sufficient. James500 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability and reads promotionally. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that this is not an ad-hoc team from 10 days of the air14 they perform on 8 days (saturday30. superpuma is also the superpuma team) [62] & [63] and that they perfrom reguraly each year on axalp [64]. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC) @Chris Troutman. It is not promotionally, because the Super Puma Display Team don't need to be promotet, they get every year many requests to fly a display , more requests as they can do. Also the don't earn money with this, every display flown, by the Superpuma- Hornet- PC-7Team and patrouille suisse is free, the airforce don't charge any money for it so it can't be a promotion. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Swiss Air Force per Ad Orientem. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Invasion[edit]

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

Commercial article. Lists un-notable comics with prices. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is notable because it was nominated for an award. I removed the prices from the article. Frmorrison (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG just fine. Notable enough to get reviewed and the guy doing it interviewed. Check other reliable sources for comic books, and they surely gave coverage of this as well. The comic books wikiproject really needs to make an custom Google search that searches through all the reliable sources for comics. Make things so much easier. Dream Focus 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration. If anyone feels there is useful information to merge, it remains in the article history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formulas for constant acceleration[edit]

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

Whatever article you could make of it, it's already covered by equations of motion in much greater detail. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree this not a useful article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration, since the equations presented in the article appear to be trivial variants of the "SUVAT equations" discussed there. Deor (talk) 03:05, 5 August 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 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. This page is not useful and not needed since there is already a page dedicated to equations of motions.--Steve Quinn (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Deor and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration per Deor, et al. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 13 August 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 05:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Equations of motion#Constant linear acceleration per previous comments & nom. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Boateng[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability. There is no indication of notability, bio reads like just another doctor. He doesn't meet any of WP:NACADEMICS. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons membership? According to WP:Academics #3, if he is a fellow of a higher institution, (in this case American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons) then he is more then notable. I might not understand a difference between being a fellow and being a member.--Mishae (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not show notability. The only source seems to be a vanity site where members submit themselves for inclusion. Stesmo (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Academics #3 mentions a highly selective organisation. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons membership stands at about 36000 and thus is not selective, plus it sounds like an organisation you are expected to belong to. Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Physicians are wonderful people and I am glad he and all the others worked so hard to gain those skills. He's a member of a professional group that can bring 30,000 people to San Francisco, filling hotel rooms and packing the restaurants and cable cars. He's a rank and file member, who meets the qualifications and pays his dues. Does this make him notable enough for a Wikipedia biography? I don't think so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not clarify why the subject is relevant. Membership of the stated organisations does not confer relevance. - Taketa (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Membership in AAOS does not make a person notable. Virtually all orthopedic surgeons in the US become members while in residency and remain until they retire. We're talking about a guy who completed his training and became a practicing surgeon only five years ago. This isn't even a close question. Qwertyzap (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference[edit]

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

There is no reason to think this particular series of conferences is of any special importance. The references are merely their published proceedings or routine announcements. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. If a librarian and diligent editor like DGG says that the topic isn't independently notable, I must agree. The lack of references to independent sources verifies his conclusion. Redirects are cheap, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals per Cullen328. No larger significance than in-house, and no other coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect. In fact, I should have thought of it myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical foul[edit]

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

Delete: This article is but a duplicate of information that can already be found on the pages Fouls and misconduct (association football) and Professional foul. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect There are tactical fouls in other sports, see e.g. FIBA Europe attacks tactical fouls and flopping. The topic in association football is already fully covered as Kndimov mentioned. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've never heard this as a term used in association football. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's widely used in soccer though. See https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=%22soccer%22+%22tactical+foul%22 - surely then there should be some kind of disambiguation page in Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Nfitz, "association football" is soccer. -- Kndimov (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Glossary of association football terms. Agree a redirect would create issues as it is not a specific footballing term. Nfitz has shown that a sentence or two in the glossary article could readily be sourced. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Secret ^account 02:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest professional wrestlers[edit]

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

Trivial and un-notable. Fails WP:N. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 02:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criteria #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... What next ... List of smallest professional wrestlers? . –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one does lay itself wide open for humour. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ArcAngel. Also for a failure in semantics. --Bejnar (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources write about the topic–it is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research. No source makes a list like this. Not a relevant topic, since height is not a criteria in wrestling. - Taketa (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Johnuniq writes "No sources write about the topic", and in fact set about this AFD with a comment to WT:PW about the list, picking out a quote from André the Giant's listing which may come across as odd to the uninitiated. My numerous complaints about cherry-picked web sources aside, the fact is that André's height was called into question as far back as 1976, when he faced Chuck Wepner at Shea Stadium. A section of WP:LAME is devoted to this very topic. Other extraordinarily tall wrestlers gained mainstream attention mainly due to their height. I don't recall anyone discussing Jorge González or Al Poling in the context of their wrestling talent; in fact, with those two, discussion typically focused on their lack of talent. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, there are so many wrestling examples in the Numbers and statistics alone. starship.paint ~ regal 13:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too indiscriminate by far. Fails WP:LISTN, unless someone can come up with significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. I don't see anything on Google that would attest to that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; interesting but very difficult to reliably source. McPhail (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Landscape of Lies[edit]

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

It might be "notable" as it is a failed multi-million fraud case, my only real issue with this article that it is neither notable as a film project (which only exist in a trailer form) (per WP:NFF) nor as a fraud case (per WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME) which is what this film project literally is. Almost all of the news coverage came from when those involved were found guilty just like every other cookie cutter fraudsters when they get caught. Unlike Madoff, they haven’t made enough impact enough to be that notable and there are lots of failed fraud cases that is, therefore I am very doubtful of its notability, plus 18 months later, this case seemed to be almost forgotten. Donnie Park (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Wikipedia does not care if the film was a tax scam just so long as it gets the requisite coverage, and that it did not remain in the news, so what? The topic, as covered in-depth in numerous sources,[65] meets our notability standards. Any concerns with how to present this information can be discussed on the article's talk page, and does not require deletion because its filmmakers were naughty. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources were after the defendants were found guilty just like every other cases out there but whilst the case was progressing, did it get any news coverage? No and it did get a trivial film awards which it was stripped of but there are lots of other minor film awards out there like that one they "won" and I don't think that this film festival appears to be well known outside Las Vegas as Google news shows with only 99 results, enough to warrant a mention. Let's put it this way, even Joe Bloggs can get news coverage if he get convicted of a multi-million dollar fraud case and does that mean he will get a Wikipedia article? Donnie Park (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film was written, filmed, edited, was actually screened and acknowledged by peers. No matter the reasons for its creation, IT was created and is not hoax AS a film. So... no matter the ultimate reasons for such, it received coverage allowing a neutral and well-sourced article to speak about it being produced. WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film only exists as a trailer according to what sources has to say and have you got proof that it exists beyond its trailer format, I mean its claimed 90 minutes version if that is what you are trying to imply. Donnie Park (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rescinded award from the film festival was not assigned to a trailer, but to a completed screened film. And we do not judge notability by length, but rather by coverage. Contrary to what you assert, an official UK government source revealed that after they were charged with tax fraud "after they were arrested, the gang came up with an elaborate plan to cover their tracks and hide the fraud by shooting a film on a shoestring called A Landscape of Lies featuring two television personalities," and "...after their arrest, they tried to cover up the tax fiddle by shooting a film called A Landscape of Lies on a shoe-string budget. Rleased on DVD in 2011, it starred Loose Women presenter and former GMTV weather presenter Andrea McLean.". So it would seem that even if not the big budget film originally promised for which they were caught out for not making and then fraudulently filing for government benefits, a film was made and released on DVD. Dark as its history was, a film was made and WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I looked for the DVD and it still does not exist nor it does in its full format as the source imply. All of its source I can find call it a fake film so therefore it doesn't exist. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Lost films and WP:NTEMP. It really does not matter that you cannot find it. The original concept was for a hoax project called A Landscape of Lives which was the basis for the filmmakers being prosecuted for tax fraud. As explained in numerous sources, the film A Landscape of Lies was created after they were caught and in an failed attempt to cover their asses. If it never existed, I am sure we could find one reliable source somewhere that said the cover-up film was never made... and such reveal is never said by any. Like it or not, WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IE: Read here just how a "fake" big-budget film became a real low-budget one. Considering the number of available sources, both WP:GNG and thus WP:NF are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see how it exists beyond its trailer format. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Donnie, but we do not have to each visually see a film to be able to read those many sources which speak toward it's existence. Go read "lost films" and WP:NTEMP. Even if an embarrassment to honest filmmakers, it was finally made and released on DVD... a fact confirmed in multiple reliable sources, even if lost now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you can actually find torrents of the movie out there (not that I'm recommending that anyone illegally download anything, mind you)- which is apparently the only way to view the film now, as the DVDs are understandably unavailable now and were never made in large quantities to begin with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see any on Torrentz, I also looked and one is marked as fake/virus and the others have disappeared, so I am in no way to think that it exists in its full format. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Donnie... but it does not matter that you are personally unable to illegally download it (and matter of fact, Wikipedia does not support or encourage such illegal activities). What does matter, is that we have enough reliable sources confirming that it was at one time available on DVD. Heck, even if now unavailable, it being considered a now lost film is irrelevant. WP:NTEMP applies. It's not our issue here to convince you personally of what has been already reported in numerous reliable sources. If you do not believe them, you may write to them. Like it or not, WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there isn't a lot of coverage for the film by way of reviews and whatnot on the actual film, the resulting fraud case did receive quite a bit of coverage and was even written about in an ABC-CLIO book. There are a lot of failed fraud cases out there, but it all boils down to coverage in reliable sources- which this film does have. I've added a few more sources, but overall this does seem to pass notability guidelines because at least one aspect of the film was notable (the court case) and it makes more sense to sum it up in a subsection of this article than to create a separate article solely for the court case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of WP:BLP1E cases that get news coverage when the verdict is reached. Donnie Park (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Donnie... as we are speaking about a completed film that received a great deal of coverage before, during, after, and for why it was created, WP:NF is met. WP:BLP1E is not applicable for a film which has coverage for many different aspects of its production. Coverage from 2011 through 2013 is not exactly a blip. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Schmidt said. This isn't something that was a flash in the pan. It gained quite a bit of coverage over a relatively long period of time and in some very solid places. Like I said, an ABC-CLIO source covered this. ABC-CLIO is an American academic publisher that puts out books that are frequently used in academic libraries and as textbooks in college courses. It's pretty well respected in its field, so a mention in one of their books is a very good sign of lasting notability. Bluntly put, when something is mentioned in an academic textbook it means that the topic (in this case the film and the resulting chaos) is pretty darn notable. This book, paired with the rather large amount of coverage in other RS, definitively shows notability in my opinion. A film's notability does not end and begin with reviews and just because someone made a movie in order to scam people does not mean that it should never be covered on Wikipedia. I mean, Highbeam lists over 20 articles ([66]) from all over the world- NPR to the Irish Times. That's more than just a flash in the pan and since the court case was specifically because of the scam surrounding the film, it counts towards overall notability for the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage of the film and the tax scam to have an article. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Qawmi_Madrasas_in_Bangladesh#Dhaka_Division. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darus Sunnah Madrasah Boshundhora[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and doesn't make sense. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article could be kept if it's a high school level institution. User:Sayeem2014 could give an idea. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Qawmi Madrasas in Bangladesh#Dhaka Division. Madrasas can be either primary or secondary schools and I can't verify the status of this one. Pending evidence that it is a secondary school, this seems the pragmatic way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TWW - Seems more logical to merge than to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Qawmi Madrasas in Bangladesh#Dhaka Division per The Whispering Wind. I am not even sure that it is verifiable in a reliable source. Anyone know the Bengali name? --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CutThroat[edit]

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

Band seems to fail to meet WP:NOTABILITY, as a google search yielding nothing. Jab843 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See references below. / Suggest possible page name change to: CutThroatLA ^[3] ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasp1 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ http://cutthroatla.com/
^ http://www.theprp.com/2014/07/25/news/former-downset-members-return-as-cutthroat-reclaim-songs-they-released-as-downset/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see that they'd meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. This is also sailing perilously close to being CSD A1 at this point, as it's not at all clear from the article that it's a band, at least until you look at the "sources". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ClickInsurance[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. The only source offered, a video in French, appears to be an WP:SPS; it's certainly not a recognized news source. I was unable to find better sources by Googling, include searching news and other sources. The author of the article appears to be an WP:SPA. Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability found for this comparison site. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source is not self-published (TVA is a major Quebec TV network) but a search for refs establishes its existence only. Searching for the French name of the company ("ClicAssure") doesn't help. Hairhorn (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the above arugments are compelling, a short google search has yielded the following (although they are in French):
- Radio-Canada TV show Entrée principale
- Radio X
- La Presse
- Protégez-vous
- Quebecor publications (not affiliated with the company):
  - Journal de Québec
  - Canoe.ca
  - Salut, Bonjour (only article currently cited)

The article needs to be cleaned up, to be sure, but I don't think deleting it will help consumers in the least. There's a lot of good information in there. - Sweet Nightmares 17:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I made some changes to the page and add the sources. The text is informational and is written with a neutral point of view. --WilliamCloutier (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable company. Even if it has press coverage then that coverage should say something useful. If one checks the statements being backed with citations, they are so mundane that they deserve to be deleted because they only establish that this organization is, in fact, a typical insurance provider and give no depth at all to the description of the organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do say interesting things about the company, which isn't actually a "typical insurance provider"--in fact, it's not an insurance provider at all. The problem is, since I appear to be in the minority here, why improve it if it's just going to get deleted? Surely there exists good content on the Radio-Canada show, but apparently the episode isn't available online. Radio X's clip talking about the role of these kinds of companies driving insurance prices down in Quebec looks to be promising, and Protégez-vous indicates some problems with the service that I'd add in, as well. However, the former is not working on my computer right now and again, why bother wasting my time listening to it if the article is just going to get deleted by people who--with all due respect--are unfamiliar with the subject matter? - Sweet Nightmares 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may say interesting things but the article is not reflecting this. Perhaps some of this content could be moved to an article on this general kind of company, rather than this article about this particular brand. In that way, the research already done would be kept and more accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB and, per nom, set up by an SPA. I really don't see why on earth we would need an article about an insurance comparison website which appears to have only two staff and be available only in Quebec unless it's done something super-notable, which it appears not to have done. 02:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Truck Routes in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Unsourced listcruft. These alternate truck routes can be covered in the article about the parent route. Dough 48 72 00:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Unneeded cruft that belongs on WikiVoyage or somewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an entirely unreferenced article, and a search for sources turns up very little. And sources that I can find seem to focus mostly on temporary situations: Road X has heavy traffic. Use road Y as an alternate. How about alternate car routes? Alternate motorcycle routes? How about alternate routes that cross the Pennsylvania border to adjoining states? My research led me to the conclusion that this specific topic is neither discrete, nor notable, nor encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails stand-alone list notability as a non-notable topic lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=17803#.U_aoOLySyHs

[2] ttp://books.google.com/books?id=EXHVTLms96oC&pg=PA252&dq=%22Legacy+internet%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=so7rU__PKoSayAT_soGQAQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22Legacy%20internet%22&f=false

[3] ttps://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

[4] Michael Skube, Staff writer (June 8, 1995). "Beers of distinction NOT JUST ANY BREW WILL DO: QUAFFERS SEEKING QUALITY ARE FILLING THEIR GLASSES WITH MICRO LAGERS AND ALES". The Atlanta Constitution. p. H1.

[5] John R. Wilke and Bob Ortega (October 2, 1997). "Anheuser's Sales Practices Under Probe --- Justice Agency Investigates Charges Brewer Abuses Its Top Market Position". Wall Street Journal. p. A3.

[6] [1]

[7] [2]

[8] ttp://cutthroatla.com/

[9] ttp://www.theprp.com/2014/07/25/news/former-downset-members-return-as-cutthroat-reclaim-songs-they-released-as-downset/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]