Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 August	15 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cayman Islands Exempted Limited Partnership Law, 2014[edit]

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

I will quote the reason given in a PROD by Kobuu: "This seems to only be the law and reads like a legal briefing. I have no doubt that this is useful information to someone but I don't think Wiki is the place for it. Also, the original author no longer exists." 331dot (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I don't think that a valid rationale for deletion has been advanced. Even if this were a problem (and I don't think it is) it can be dealt with by rewriting the article. If necessary, the article could be reduced to a one line stub and rebuilt. We don't delete articles because they are WP:IMPERFECT. James500 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the criticism that the article is "only the law" is particularly absurd. A WP article on a piece of legislation should be about the law (and especially black letter law). There is no reason whatsoever why it should necessarily include history, politics or sociology because these subjects are marginally relevant at best. An article about law should read like a law book such as Halsbury's Laws of England (a famous encyclopedia of law) and not like a sociology book or the like. James500 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this article does contain is a large number of expression of opinions that are not attributed to any source. These might be original research, but they could easily have been drawn from one of the many sources discussing this Act. These can be dealt with simply by finding a source for them or by excising altogether, and are not a reason to delete the article. I think the best thing to do might be to stubify the article and rebuild it. James500 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to The Exempted Limited Partnership Law, 2014 and stubified it to remove the uncited material and POV with this edit. The article should now be expanded. There are now no further conceivable objections whatsoever to the article on this obviously notable Act. James500 (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is much improved,(the page should not be the law verbatim as it was) but I don't understand why there doesn't need to be a link to where the law is written down(or other source describing its passage). On pages I edit where I talk about a statute I always link to where I found it so others know I wasn't just making it up. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this article does now include external links (in the references section), and whilst external links are desirable because they make verification easier, we have never had a requirement that an article must be based on at least one online source. The reason for this appears to be that many books and other documents have never been digitised with a scanner and are available only in printed hard copy form. James500 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there has to be an online link, but it wasn't really clear to me (as an outsider) where to look up the information in any form. All of that said, I hereby withdraw my request given the changes to the page as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination should be closed as speedy keep under criteria 1 of WP:SK as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator. James500 (talk) 12:35, 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. Tawker (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Swade[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The subject has received local coverage in Kansas City for co-directing one documentary, but beyond that there are no sources providing substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 14 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 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this person has produced a notable work. Sources do not confirm that this person meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no clear signs of notability. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is actually substantial coverage of him in national press about the events surrounding the ESPN 30 for 30 special (See [1] and [2]). However, he is also known for more than just a single event (See [3] and [4]). According to this and other sources, he also founded a now defunct record company. All in all, he passes general notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are about the same documentary and mere mentions rather than anything substantial. The documentary well may be notable, but that doesn't mean that the director automatically is. Similarly, coverage of the record company is pretty thin on the ground itself, and there doesn't appear to be anything specifically discussing his role in founding it. SmartSE (talk) 11:40, 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 speedily deleted (by me) as hoax. I'll leave it to others to deal with the images. Deor (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abdelqader[edit]

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

My main objection to this page is that it is a hoax. It has two pictures on it, both of which include the face of the subject very obviously super-imposed. Beyond this, the article has no sources. Lastly, nothing in the article amount to a claim of notability. The scary thing to me is this article has existed since last October. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. This is a blatant hoax and should be deleted immediately. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better late than never. Thanks for catching this. Cbl62 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant hoax per G3. The obviously rough cut-and-pastes of the subject's face on another person in photos with Tupac are hilarious. We seem to be encountering more and more tests of our systems and procedures for new articles, at least some of which are inspired/suggested by academics who question the validity/sustainability of Wikipedia as a reference of any reliability. I ask, not entirely rhetorically, whether we still have organized New Page Patrols? This article should not have survived a cursory review by any editor who was vaguely familiar with our notability, reliable source and deletion policies and guidelines, but yet, it survived for ten months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3 - blatant hoax. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 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. Tawker (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Swade[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The subject has received local coverage in Kansas City for co-directing one documentary, but beyond that there are no sources providing substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 14 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 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this person has produced a notable work. Sources do not confirm that this person meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no clear signs of notability. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is actually substantial coverage of him in national press about the events surrounding the ESPN 30 for 30 special (See [5] and [6]). However, he is also known for more than just a single event (See [7] and [8]). According to this and other sources, he also founded a now defunct record company. All in all, he passes general notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are about the same documentary and mere mentions rather than anything substantial. The documentary well may be notable, but that doesn't mean that the director automatically is. Similarly, coverage of the record company is pretty thin on the ground itself, and there doesn't appear to be anything specifically discussing his role in founding it. SmartSE (talk) 11:40, 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. low participation AfD, nominator raises good points, this would be a borderline CSD A7 in my opinion. Seeing no further discussion after 2 re-list closing as uncontested PRODlike Tawker (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work Movement[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. Almost all sources link to the subject's database entry. However beside data entries there are four other sources in the article, one YouTube link (unreliable), one press release (unreliable), and two dead links. There is nothing helpful found on Google news and Google books. Perhaps creator would like to throw some light on the claim, which describe the subject in the lead subject as, "a global social enterprise". To me, subject qualifies deletion according to Wikipedia deletion policy for failing notability. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements suggested has been made in the article. The information contained in the article is of high use to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.25.199 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Information updated. References added. Content is neutral and of public benefit. Oskar Uhlig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskaruhlig (talk • contribs) 12:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The improvements referred to by 222.166.25.199 & Oskaruhlig have not adequately addressed the problem of the subject failing WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. Virtually all of its citations are primary, not reliable secondary, sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:35, 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, Wifione ^Message 01:01, 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 22:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what's the problem? get a life. article seems fine to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskaruhlig (talk • contribs) 08:01, 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 no consensus. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocloud[edit]

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

A merge to cloud is possible, but I'm seeing very little coverage for what could be a neologism. Only sources I could really find are a thesis, and a few other sites that refer to this thesis. There are actually several, several sources about man-made clouds, but not under this name, so whether or not this can be kept, at least under this title, should now be discussed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to make this clearer earlier: the subject of this AfD is the term "Anthropocloud", not the concept of the man-made cloud. As it seems that the word Anthropocloud is a neologism that has not been covered in/used by reliable sources, should this article be kept, it should probably be moved to a different title. Note that Artificial cloud already exists, so I'm fine with a merge to that article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that this is a notable topic in its own right and in several of the environmental sciences "Anthropo" is a widely used suffix to describe human activity, for example the Anthropocene which is a theoretical age used to describe the past 200 years. I am a recent graduate in environmental science. Seasider91 (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is the case, I suggest merging this article into the artificial cloud article as the article under AFD seems to be better written. Seasider91 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Artificial cloud. Yes the topic is notable, but this name is a neologism and is really not used by the practitioners, and we do have the start of an article at the more appropriate term. --Bejnar (talk) 03:17, 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 01:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference available online is a glossary that does not discuss the term. As such, the article seems to be an essay and not appropriate for WP.--Rpclod (talk) 02:58, 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 22:23, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

per WP:SOLDIER NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I've removed one "comment" here as it simply contained a gallery with no vote or reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Gallery added by Rococo1700

Good grief. I'm too tired from writing the Gennaro Serra article to write anymore, do not delete it because:

Gennaro's mother's House of Carafa heraldic shield
Palazzo Serra di Cassano, Naples
Flag Parthenopean Republic
Admiral Nelson and Lady Hamilton in Naples
Eleonora Pimentel
Luisa Sanfelice in Jail
Mario Pagano, last rites
Ignazio Ciaia

Gennaro Serra was a member of the House of Carafa, one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Naples, if not Italy, who lived in the monumental Palazzo Serra di Cassano in Naples, but who, in some ways working against his natal class, helped found the Parthenopean Republic, but despite surrendering to Cardinal Ruffo, the surrender agreement was in part voided by Admiral Nelson and his squeeze Lady Hamilton, leading to the execution of Eleonora Pimentel, Luisa Sanfelice ,Mario Pagano, and Ignazio Ciaia. One of whom argued with him about the wisdom of establishing a cavalry unit, other arrested with him for distributing the first copies of the declaration of the rights of man in naples, and some of whom were executed on the same stage on the same day. Luisa is an example of also how the counter revolutionary purge hit the aristocracy, and how it later influence artists; Serra's execution gave an idea to Tito Angelini. Good grief!Rococo1700 (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE COMMENTARY ON THIS DISCUSSION!!!!!!! Good grief. I'm too tired from writing the Gennaro Serra article to write anymore.

I find it editorial that I have to justify why not to delete a biography on an individual whose memory is still around two hundred years later for rather earthshaking events in the history of Naples, but those who wish to delete it, do not have to make no effort at explaining themselves. I have seen zero, zero effort by anyone to justify why this article has to be deleted.

Rococo1700 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see really a bunch of Google Books sources covering this individual, most Italian sources (a few are false positive as there is a Gennaro Serra street in Naples), which include a 1999 biographical work (Gennaro Serra di Cassano: un portone chiuso in faccia al tiranno by Pietro Gargano). Apparently an important figure in the short-lived Parthenopean Republic (eg, the book Terronismo by Marco Demarco refers to his life events as a popular myth). Moving the page to Gennaro Serra di Cassano or to Gennaro Serra could be in order. Cavarrone 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual's WP:Notability should not be assessed on the grounds of WP:Soldier alone, as he has strong aristocratic and political reasons for notability - he was a Duke when that really meant something!!. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 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 22:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepA well known person in Italy.User:Lucifero4
Keep per the information provided by Cavarrone. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:24, 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. Tawker (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Slap[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable author, failing all 4 points of WP:AUTHOR. This article was written by a WP:SPA whose user page says he does Marketing work for the subject. ~~Maybe suitable for WP:Csd#a7.~~ Failed CSD in June 2011. The Dissident Aggressor 08:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and AUTHOR. Apparently no coverage of him in independent reliable sources, his book has several but routine reviews, nothing monumental enough to make Slap notable. BethNaught (talk) 18:26, 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 22:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now without bias against revival in the future; it's possible that he may meet WP:NAUTHOR later. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Way too soon. Created by marketing so risk of COI. Cowlibob (talk) 11:41, 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. Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Einspanier[edit]

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

Written like a resume. I don't see anything in here that makes him notable. What do we use for geologists? WP:NACADEMICS? Doesn't meet that IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even aside from the puff-piece tone, the subject does not meet WP:PROF for sure, and cannot find any source that would go towards meeting WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 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 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:GNG is more appropriate than WP:PROF for someone who seems to be more of a practicing geologist than a scholar of geology. But regardless, we don't have evidence that he passes either criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 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 04:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live it China[edit]

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

Not notable; fails Wikipedia:CORP. Weak references which are mainly connected with the organisation. No coverage found on Google News. Article is promotional in tone and mainly written by two single-purpose accounts with conflicts of interest, apparent from their usernames: User:AaronLiveChina, and User:Batcarmen (last, first name of an employee of this company, judging by a Google search.) Citobun (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- also doesn't pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:10, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silveroak Legal[edit]

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

Unreferenced, this article is more advertising than telling us why this company is notable. Non-notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another law firm. Probably could have been speedily deleted under WP:A7. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 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 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion is made which meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply an advertisement (and poorly done one at that). No indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 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 04:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ballantyne[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had any significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Additionally there is a lack of in depth third party coverage [9] AlanS (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to Google, I searched NewsBank UK & Ireland for "Martin Ballantyne", which gave 4 hits for people of that name, but none of turned out to be actors. If he gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the future, it could always be recreated. Qwfp (talk) 13:16, 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 21:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's barely even a claim of significance here. --Michig (talk) 09:01, 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. The "keep" arguments are weak in the face of the sourcing-based "delete" arguments. "Give me time" and "Let's give this editor a chance" isn't going to cut it in the face of WP:V and WP:N. If the sourcing situation improves markedly, the article could be restored. Sandstein 08:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Robert Baden-Powell[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is having famous relatives — except that notability is not inherited, so that doesn't make him notable by itself — and which is relying exclusively on primary sources (one genealogy PDF, two webpages of organizations he was directly involved in, and one brief notice of his death in a British estates database) with not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he gets past even one of our actual inclusion rules. It's a delete, I'm sorry to say. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable architect with a famous surname who wrote a non-notable book. I was unable to find any significant coverage of him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, (quoting Mandy Rice-Davies I would say that, wouldn't I. There is much much more, when I can find it. He was a very successful Master of the Worshipful Company of Mercers), and well-respected in the Architectural profession. Give me time... RobinClay (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Master of the Worshipful Company of Mercers" is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person gets an encyclopedia article. I note that the overwhelming majority of people listed at Master of the Mercers' Company don't have their own articles, and the few that do are all notable for something else separately from that fact alone (e.g. as MPs or as mayors of London). Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pe WP:DONOTDEMOLISH Let's give this editor a chance to improve the article. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:27, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Six directorships, but nary a word about any buildings this architect may have designed? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:14, 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philandry[edit]

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

The term 'philandry' does not appear in any dictionary save Wiktionary, where no verification or provenance is supplied. The dictionary refs given in the article are bogus. Deletion is requested because the subject lacks reliable supporting sources. Bjenks (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although not in dictionaries, a Google Books search indicates that it seems to exist in some books. However, not enough to justify an article. Merge to the article most appropriately covering sexuality and gender terms. bd2412 T 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its capacity for confusion with similar terms makes this an extremely unhelpful word. The closest dictionary entries in the OED are 1. philander, n.2 1737 ...(Usu. in form filander.) The dusky wallaby or pademelon; 2. philander, v. 1778 ...intr. Esp. of a man: to flirt; to engage in casual sexual or romantic encounters; 3. philanderer, n. 1841...A man who philanders; a male flirt.... Coining of this word would bring about about an unnecessary clash of meaning between philandrer or philandrist (= a person who loves men) and philanderer (= most usually, a man who loves women). I can imagine such mischief being promoted only by users having a poor knowledge of English, or whose intention is deliberately to confuse and obfuscate. Bjenks (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition that says nothing encyclopedic about its subject, whether or not it is even a real word. JulesH (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a (questionable) dictionary entry. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I have proposed a (nonspecific) merge, I have no particularly strong objection to deleting, either. bd2412 T 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge Just dump Philandry in Misandry, and Philogyny in Misogyny. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:34, 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 Limerick City Museum. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick Museum and Archives[edit]

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

Promotional article. Doing a cursory Google search I was unable to determine any reliable sources not related to this company. I don't believe it's a speedy deletion candidate since it makes a claim of projects which relate to the history of Limerick, Ireland. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the more extensive material in Limerick City Museum, using the present title, since it is more comprehensive. What we do not need, is two articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per DGG. Snappy (talk) 17:49, 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 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per DGG. We basically have one article split between two titles, which can and should be corrected at any time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG.The article is split into two.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 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. Closing this as Keep (otherwise the script will put the merge tags the wrong way round) , and then tagging the Karapapak article to be merged into it. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terekeme people[edit]

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

Another name for Karapapak. We cannot have two articles for one people. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karapapak - The articles are a little confusing as they reference different locations, but the Karapapak article suggests that the names reference the same people. Anything that I find via Google suggests that the two names apply to the same people.--Rpclod (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, at least the different image. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, should merged with Karapapaks.--Yacatisma (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but delete Whatever Terekeme may mean, Karapapak means "black hat", and is the name given them, assuming they are actually the same, by Russians. So really, the article on them, again assuming they are not two different groups, should be called Terekeme, as they call themselves, and Karapapak, a trivial nickname referring to the style of their hats, the redirect to it. Anarchangel (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchangel's logic is good and we may have general consensus, including the nominator, that the Karapapak article should be merged into, and the Karapapak reference redirected to, the Terekeme article. Can that be done with an AfD for the Terekeme article? Did I put words in anyone's mouth?--Rpclod (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you wish, except having two articles for the one and same people. I proposed the last article added. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:30, 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

May not meet WP:AUTHOR. Although this author and film producer has produced works which have some coverage, may not meet WP:GNG, as most coverage appears to be on unreliable sources. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected bad faith nomination: the editor has just placed a comment on my shared ip page, from which this article was edited. the comment was about me supposedly "blanking" serbian film article, while i added pov tag (and a category). checking last nomination, which was relatively recent and retracted by nominator, testifies that motivation for this is not only bogus, but wastes community time. and yes, vanja bulic is a very well known journalist - just read last nomination. 213.198.221.171 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the previous AfD nomination, the nominator did not give a good reason for it's deletion; he should have used WP policies and guidelines to support his claims. This is why that nomination was a bad faith nomination, but that does not make this one bad faith; I expressed a concern that this topic may not meet the notability guidelines listed above. As I've already told you, WP:NOTAGAIN is not a valid argument to use in deletion discussions.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the previous nomination does not seem to be bad faith nomination; the nominator was not knowledgeable about the subject, and it was poorly sourced. your nomination seems to be in bad faith, because of its motivation, as explained, and also because the previous nomination had a discussion that refuted all your supposed points. thus, i highly suspect that you did not nominate this because of your issue as you claim (though you put supposedly supportive policies), but because you checked what articles were edited from ip that edited page serbian film, that you claimed was "blanking". either that, or it is a weird coincidence. in any case, i believe this is bad faith nomination, which has nothing to do with the merits of the subject of the article (which is, as can be easily seen from discussion before, both notable, and satisfies all the criteria that you claim are basis for deletion - both author, and reliable sources etc; but that is no surprising, since your motivation is in something elese apparently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.221.171 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep disruptive nomination. Homework: read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić first, or just fucking type his name in Google. No such user (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable author, works (like Pretty Village, Pretty Flame, many books) appear in many secondary reliable sources, many reliable sources in Serbian about him and his work as journalist, best known for cult series Crni Biseri from the 90s, editor of major Duga magazine etc. Everyone in Serbia knows him, and is well known in most of ex-SFRY. One of the 5 most well known journalists of Serbian origin, together with Aleksandar Tijanic, Milomir Marić, Miroslav Lazanski and Mira Adanja-Polak. LoncarLoncici (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since the above argument is not valid per WP:AADD, I have struck it.-Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you're going to have to find verifiable sources to support these claims. Otherwise, your opinion will not be considered; you have used WP:ASSERTN, WP:MUST, and WP:ITEXISTS, which are not valid arguments to use in a deletion discussion.Qxukhgiels (talk)

Unstruck. You don't get to strike other people's comments, particularly not in a deletion debate where you were the nominator, and especially not for spurious reasons. It is the closer's business to weigh arguments in the debate. I'm inclined to launch you straight to ANI. No such user (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument above, as I've already mentioned, relies on WP:AADD, so that is why I have struck it. Reporting me at ANI for this would accomplish little, if not nothing at all. Also, how about reading this.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qxukhgiels, you should keep calm and point out issues with people's comments without interfering with them. It is the closing editor's job to weed them out, and if it's as obvious as you think, then there's no real downside in letting it play out in such an orderly fashion. Otherwise, you appear as if you are the moderator, which you are not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:40, 14 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 21:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Meets the guideline at WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. See [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The list just goes on. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Quite a strange nomination, this, considering the wide range of points addressed in the discussion spawned from Safiel's first nomination, which he then quickly withdrew. As for WP:GNG, Bulić is all over Politika,[15] Serbian newspaper-of-record, and he's very prominent in other Serbian papers too. And this is without even going into his well-documented career as an author and his decade-long stint as a TV host of a very prominent programme Crni biseri.Zvonko (talk) 01:22, 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. I hate to close AfDs with this little discussion, but it's already been relisted twice, so I'm going to call this delete. If anybody feels strongly that it should not be deleted, drop me a note on my talk page. Also, per Ansh666's note, I'm closing this manually; it's been a long time since I haven't relied on automation for that; I hope I don't mess it up :-)

The Waiter (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, can't find any sources, seems like the article was written by the filmmaker. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I'm tending towards delete. I found one Houston Chronicle article (The Waiter (film) was filmed in Houston) which verifies the film exists, though is almost entirely about the illustrious biography of the film's main star, Charles Durning. It was clearly a coup to get Dunning for this low budget film, but I can only presume from the lack of evidence that the long list of alleged awards (see IMDb profile) received by The Waiter were very minor. Sionk (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to closer - the article has been moved to The Waiter (2007 film); the current title has been redirected to Waiter (disambiguation). If consensus is to delete, please do not use a script on this one. Ansh666 18:49, 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 01:42, 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 21:31, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Cricket World Cup[edit]

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

WAY too early for this and purely speculative at this point. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A3 No Content, A7 No indication of importance and full delete from Reasons 6:Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. I mean there are many policy reasons to dump this one. SPACKlick (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the only statement the article makes about the tournament is that the UAE may host it -- unsourced of course -- is a concession that the article is nothing more than a meaningless crystal ball-gazing exercise. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nomination. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete what next? An article on 2100 Olympics? LibStar (talk) 12:51, 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 04:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richest Celebrity of West Bengal[edit]

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

The article does not cite any references. Also, there are no similar articles of its kind on Wikipedia. An article for the list of Indian billionaires already exist. There shouldn't be a separate article for West Bengal because it is not a country. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced list containing information about living people with dubious notability of its subject. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no significance of having this article until and unless Forbes list of Indian billionaires get improved (it can also be merged with it). CutestPenguin • Talk 16:00, 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 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto "Beto" Gutierrez[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A high school teacher and maybe not even full time university faculty. Nothing coming close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person; unverified information. The article claims he teaches at CSU-Northridge but that does not appear to be true.[16] --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 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 withdrawn--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petitcodiac Riverkeeper[edit]

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

This doesn't sem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. I quickly found the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH per available sources that cover the organization. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominaion withdrawn Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 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 speedy delete: G3, one in a series of blatant hoaxes created by a now-blocked disruptive editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Defrost[edit]

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

I can't find any sources, reliable or otherwise, that validates this title or the supposed plot. A redirect to Ice Age: Continental Drift might be appropriate but only if in fact this title ever existed. If not, it should be considered a purely made-up article with a made-up plot. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10. It's an implausible redirect and adds nothing to Ice Age: Continental Drift. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdev Singh Hans[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Award of the Vir Chakra falls below the guidelines spelled out at WP:SOLDIER (which requires awarding of the nation's highest honor). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soldier with a role in one small part of a conflict, no pass of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:V. CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:06, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is not requesting deletion. Redirecting can be done by any editor, not just admins, and should be discussed on the article's talkpage. — Gwalla | Talk 22:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachna Ó Braonáin[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable independent of his band - suggest redirect to Hothouse Flowers (taken to AfD as this would effectively delete the article) Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dj on national radio aswell. Also has released albums in another band aswell as recording with other artists. Murry1975 (talk) 19:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Morrow (author)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I couldn't confirm it's one reference either. This has been tagged for notability for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also reads like an ad. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails the Prof test - he's been cited once. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He is said to write about local history, but the article does not say what he has written, only 3 works about gynology. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)[edit]

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

I would like to officially nominate this article for deletion as it has remained empty since its creation on 19 July. On top of that, the CONCACAF has not officially announced its qualification process for the World Cup, therefore, making this article not notable right now. 71.162.68.219 (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. Ansh666 17:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the IP and WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated when details are announced. Ansh666 17:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the details are not confirmed. Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's guesswork. The information doesn't exist yet. The article is basically empty of content and references. SPACKlick (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No precious content.--Uishaki (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be recreated when the information is available. JackHoang (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The entire article consists of "The CONCACAF qualification for the 2018 FIFA World Cup will consist of member nations competing for places at the finals in Russia." There isn't any content (probably because there isn't any yet), if there were, I'd be tempted to keep it. IJA (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing to say yet. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 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 04:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Mernagh[edit]

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

Appears to have only got coverage for one event - cheating. I couldn't find any reliable sources to prove he was notable for winning a notable horse race in Dubai. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited from his cousin and all of the sources concern his suspension so WP:BLP1E applies. Jakejr (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable jockey. There is no specific notability guideline for horse-racing, and therefore horses and jockeys must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG to qualify for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Coverage of the subject is insufficient to satisfy GNG -- no in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and what nominal coverage there is seems to be limited to his suspension in the UK (a probable WP:BLP1E exception, as others have noted). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy the Wikipedia general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. AAA3AAA (talk) 15:42, 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has been tagged for notability for over six years and several editors have raised concerns about its notability (see page's history). Merge proposal was put in for this to be merged to his notable foundation - only one response to the proposal, which was to oppose it. Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have no other remedy but to delete it; individual notability is not established by multiple independent reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- 24,000 hits on google for him and 2,300 in books google. This includes both his work with the Boy Scouts of America Health and Safety Committee and the large number of his book published, as well as being part of the Menninger Foundation. The Bio from his papers at the Kansas Historical Society is at http://www.kshs.org/dart/units/view/223421 , I'm not quite sure what need to be added for notability, Being thanked in the Credits for the Great Gadsby for the screenplay (http://cjonline.com/news/2013-05-10/walt-menninger-credited-great-gatsby) should probably be in the article, but not enough on its own for notability.Naraht (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added information from his bio in Scouting Magazine in 1986.Naraht (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of independent and reliable sources that would allow him to pass WP:GNG. We have none now: the Scouting Magazine piece is by him, not about him, and the Menninger Clinic links are not independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would using the Kansas State Historical Society Bio count? ( http://www.kshs.org/dart/units/view/223421) I'm curious as to whether that counts as primary or secondary. He didn't write the bio, but it does appear to be built from his papers. Also, if the information in the Scouting Magazine were confirmed by other sources, would that be acceptable to you?Naraht (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks, EricEnfermero, for properly sourcing this and demonstrating that it passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think I've added enough independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Menninger served as editor for two psychiatric journals (albeit one published out of the Menninger Clinic) and received a Distinguished Service Award from the American Psychiatric Association. He was covered pretty widely as he led the Menninger Clinic through a period in which they decided to move the whole operation to another state. His research led to the Menninger morale curve, which is a method of framing the study of morale among members of groups. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely WP:GNG especially after EricEnfermero additions. Quite famous in the field of psychiatry. I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 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) 23:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Camara (footballer born 1983)[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources about this footballer, even to establish his existence; all are rather about Titi Camara, who shares the same first and last name but was born in 1972. The article creator has added only general pages that require searching, and those where I have been able to search (some do not respond when I try to search) are listing only Titi Camara. The article still has 2 footnotes (2 others were removed in a recent edit as useless), so the "unreferenced BLP" tag is strictly inappropriate, but none of the 4 mentions this Aboubacar Camara. BLP:PROD was declined, so here we are. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a completely useless and unreferenced article. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. What do you mean it's a useless and unreferenced article? It clearly fulfills WP:NFOOTBALL. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reference to support ANYTHING on the article page. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability (per WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL), and no player of this name was born in 1983. Giant Snowman 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this player has ever played professional football. Article seems to make vague claims that he played internationally for Guinea, but there is no evidence to support that either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is of this article is simply not notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reading the article, I was of the opinion that it met WP:FOOTBALL but required cleanup, then I tried opening the references and googling the player then I got irritated (especially because of the so-many Camara's that existed in Guinea) and abandoned it. It is either this article is a poorly sourced notable one or a promotional piece by some unknown local player.Darreg (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the clubs mentioned in the subject's career infobox, only two were playing in a fully professional league (as per the footballer-specific notability criteria at WP:NFOOTBALL) at the time he supposedly played for them. The Turkish Football Federation website helpfully lists each club's squad for each season: Mr Camara doesn't appear in Elazigspor's squad for 2000/01 or 2001/02 (select season from dropdown menu in Team Staff section and click on search). Nor does he appear in ForaDeJogo.net's squad list for Estrela Amadora for 2002/03. As GiantSnowman says above, there's no-one of this name/dob on the NFT international players database. I can't find any evidence of this person's existence, let alone as a footballer in a fully professional league, and certainly not as an influential international player, which the article implies. Struway2 (talk) 15:23, 17 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) 09:20, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this list for deletion as this is an unverifiable original research. Also, the term "supervillain" itself cannot be well-defined, which further supports the fact that it cannot be verified. The problem is here since 2007 (see the previous AfDs), therefore it is highly unlikely that this article will be fixed. Hence this article satisfies WP:DEL#REASONs #6,7. It also fails all five criteria of WP:GNG, especially "significance in coverage". Lastly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of fan inventions or directory. Therefore, it should be deleted. Forbidden User (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list article helps with navigation, showing people where to find similar articles they may be interested in. Everyone on the list is female and has a super power and is a villain, so its not original research. They are called this in their own articles and even featured in Category:Female supervillains already. The list would be more useful with additional information added for each entry, listing their super power, and when they debuted, and in what comic book. Dream Focus 19:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make the group notable? Besides, every claim on "super power" and "villainity" needs to be sourced on the list, and I see none.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. As long as that information is in the article being linked to, its fine. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it cites no RS to prove its notability, our deltion policy says we delete it — the MoS guideline cannot defend it.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion policy says we delete it if it is impossible to cite a RS to prove its notability. The lack of sources actually cited in the article is not a cause for deletion of the entire article. JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to Category:Female supervillains per WP:CLN, and as navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. As Dream Focus explains above, the claim that it's unverifiable whether a character is 1) female and a 2) supervillan is simply nonsense, as the original sources almost always use the label of "superhero" or "supervillain". Citing to the previous AFDs is no help to the nominator, as both closed as "keep" and did not raise the same arguments so they are hardly evidence of an unresolved "problem" existing "since 2007". postdlf (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that the problem is not here in 2007, as the noms both raise the same problems I raise. Your "always" claim is unsupported as well. Anyway, WP:N is the relevant guideline here. Throwing others are not really useful.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Article provides no information beyond the information a category provides. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still cannot support the claim that it has a point.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you consider it pointless or not is not relevant. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no point, then it is meningless not to delete it. We're not stupid, it is common sense not to have pointless stuff.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is a complementary navigational index. Plus it has the potential to be annotated and organized in different ways, which the category cannot. But I shouldn't have to tell you that if you've already read through WP:CLN, particularly WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While comic relief is of course valued on WP, and makes it into quite a few essays, including the Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose that NOTSTUPID references, I have always felt that the comic essays were almost universally the worst essays, that their value as humor was the grease that slid them in, where their sheer value as policy was lacking. I am frankly horrified to see that an ad nauseum/WP:BLUDGEONing away at the reader with five or so reiterations of the phrase "bad idea" has actually made it onto the WP:NOT page, which is actually a Policy rather than an essay. More to the point of this discussion, NOTSTUPID is a derivative of Ignore All Rules. Anyone can fly IAR up the flagpole at any time; what is important is to say WHY you think that this particular usage of a rule is wrong in this case.

I should add, that the point is not whether you, one editor alone consider it pointless or not. The point is that the policy discussion, long ago, involving dozens of editors, and the tacit acceptance of the outcome of the discussion by thousands more editors is relevant. WP:CONSENSUS has determined that cats and lists are not redundant to each other. The argument that it is pointless is not irrelevant to a new discussion about the relationship between cats and lists, but good luck finding anyone who wants to debate that, basically. Already decided. Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why do you think that I think WP:NOTDUP does not apply? By the way, complaining about comic essays is not the point here......Forbidden User (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable subject. Not redundant to a category, as the article includes information on publisher that would otherwise not be included in navigation. Could also be extended to include additional information (e.g. year of first appearance would be a useful addition IMO). JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been done and limited improvements to improve this over a category hasn't happened yet. I'll do some work, but as a matter of reference, most of these villains already contain numerous links to their criteria and portrayal in media. I'll keep to the easier lists which are ever present to start with. WP:NOTDUP clearly applies and we should aim for a little more than a mere list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several book sources exist to cover this from a non-primary aspect:

The Superhero Book: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Comic-Book Icons and Hollywood Heroes
The Science of Supervillains By Lois H. Gresh, Robert Weinberg
Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil is its Own Reward by Ben Dyer
Superheroes V Supervillains: The Ultimate Guide to the Greatest Superheroes of All Time by Sarah Oliver
The Physics of Superheroes: Spectacular Second Edition By James Kakalios
A Brief History of Marvel Comics, the Marvel Universe, Its Superheroes and Supervillains by Holly Simon
Marvel Comics in the 1970s: An Issue-by-Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon by Pierre Comtois

For something like a mere "do you define X as Y" this covers it well on all fronts. It is complete over kill let alone the media and other sites which frequently do their own "top 10" of types. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite a lot of books. I saw three really talking about supervillains. However, I'm talking about clarity in definition besides coverage. If the definition is mingled and blur, how is this list supposed to be built? However, I do have an idea of splitting this long list into several ones. E.g. One about Marvel supervillains, one about Disney supervillains, ... Perhaps this is an alternative. Forbidden User (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to supervillainess, so the definition is easy to find. Dream Focus 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant definition in the books. However, as I gladly see editors willing to work on it, I shall withdraw my nomination.Forbidden User (talk) 11:50, 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 04:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.W. Pruitt, II[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist with no particularly strong claim of notability under our inclusion rules for either endeavour, sourced only to content in a publication where the subject works — thus making it a primary source which cannot confer notability in this instance. A Wikipedia article is not something that any person automatically gets to have just because you can prove that they exist. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete When the news story is titled "Local poet", that's pretty much a concession of no significant notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor local poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 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 04:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuveer (1995 film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, article entirely unreferenced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of even importance. Piguy101 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Raghuveer (1995) K Pappu Raju Saigal Amrik Gill

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 16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable film, Nothing of value will be lost. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:28, 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. Sandstein 08:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaanti[edit]

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

Initially written as an advertisement, subject appears to be failing Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies because it lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. It does not even meet WP:ANYBIO standard. What I find, are passing mentions somewhere under cast section, of the films she is supposed to appear into. There is NOT even a single line dedicate to her in any of the reliable sources, I see. I may be wrong. But again, bring out sources that establish her notability, if there are really any. She is not-notable for acting with notable actors or in notable films because, Notability is not inherited. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, @Anupmehra: I think after your edit it is no more an advertisement, but still it fails WP:Notability. CutestPenguin (Talk) 16:56, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are far too poor to establish any notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks to me like the shows she has been in are not notable and there are not adequate sources to show notability. Also, I tend to use the search engine test, which fails here. Upjav (talk) 05:24, 23 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dina Rae Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are generally not notable except for rare exceptions. The article contains one reference and it is to a user-generated website. STATic message me! 15:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to compilation album; so theoretically it's not an mixtape album Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can change whatever you want, it is still a mixtape and it still fails WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it goes 'cause it's a "mixtape" how comes 50 Cent's 5 (Murder by Numbers) has not been deleted as that is a mixtape as well? Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'5' was reviewed by multiple reliable publications, so it meets the general notability guideline. Other mixtapes (or any type of recording, really) that can demonstrate similar coverage will typically warrant an article. Gongshow talk 16:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources for this recording; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. No objection to a redirect to the artist's page, provided she warrants a standalone article. Gongshow talk 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongshow: Dina Rae, was featured on several of Eminem's earlier album tracks, "Cum on Everybody" (from The Slim Shady LP in 1999), "Drug Ballad" (from The Marshall Mathers LP in 2000), "Pimp Like Me (from D12's debut album Devil's Night in 2001), their most known (and heavily sampled) collaboration "Superman" (from The Eminem Show album in 2002) and "Bitch" (from D12's sophomore album D12 World in 2004) and she has done another collaboration with other rappers such as Ras Kass, Jin (a Chinese-American rapper), the now deceased Proof from D12, Obie Trice, she's had a combined total of 30 million records sold (with Eminem) so I think she deserves a page; she's got an iTunes and MTV.com page as well Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage from reliable sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I'm working on getting those sources Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 20:37, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Freeman[edit]

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

No actual sources given. "Works" do not qualify as sources. Can't find anything on the net. Since this was a "Wikibomb2014" product, recommend draftify for more work. Revent^talk 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ify as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, I'm afraid (and that's probably true for most of the Wikibomb2014 articles). Freeman's h-index is 5 by my count (being careful not to confuse her with Angela B Freeman, a US cancer researcher). There may be news coverage of Freeman's government work for WP:PROF#C7 or WP:GNG, but I can only find one article ([17]). Essentially, this is an example of someone who does critically important agricultural work, but "flies under the radar" from a notability point of view. Draftifying is a waste of time, since most of the Wikibomb2014 articles were added by temporary editors, and any remaining Wikibomb2014 energy should go to articles closer to the notability borderline. -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per IP editors comments. The article does not pass either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References have now been added - I would agree it is still borderline but I think they are just about adequate. Deb (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is one source which is independent of the subject and reliable. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill industry scientist. Abductive (reasoning) 03:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. She doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF but the profile of her in The Age goes a long way towards WP:GNG. If there were two such sources, I could likely be persuaded to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given-When-Then[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a neologism. It's essentially a dictionary definition. Its contents could easily be incorporated into several articles without harm. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not new, having been used in the previous decade. There is a lot more material easily found with a simple google search to expand this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep commonly used pattern in agile development and particularly behaviour driven development. Admittedly the two references in the article at present are not the best in the world, but WP:NEO clearly does not apply as there are clearly independent reliable sources about the concept. Better references would be [18], Diego Torres Milano (June 2011). Android Application Testing Guide. Packt Publishing. ISBN 9781849513500. (the entirety of chapter 6 is devoted to this concept), or [19]. JulesH (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I've checked out JulesH's cites and found several more with the obvious google books search. There's enough WP:RS for the topic to be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:01, 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. Secret ^account 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Jazz Jam Cruise[edit]

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

No evidence meeting our notability criteria at WP:ORG - I get 29 Ghits including those related to this article Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. (And looks like copied from some ad or bulletin.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete jazzy article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . It has notability. (It was not copied from some ad or bulletin.)-- there are similar wikipedia pages - for example- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_May arkiii Arkiii (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arkiii Please explain exactly how this meets WP:ORG. I'm sure we have other araticles as bad or worse, you can't use them as part of your argument. And did you copy this from somewhere else as you've done at at least one other article? Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that you say you are Adolph "Fito" Kahn who wrote an autobiography and wrote this article about something you are closely connected with. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to cross notability threshold. Redirect and merge citable text to Austin Jazz Alliance. - Dravecky (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThat's also written by the same COI editor, User:Dravecky. The sources for that are a press release[20] and its own website. Hm, just noted that this cruise is not annual as the first cruise is this year although you'd never know it by reading it. So promotional as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment All true, but the organization is verifiable and, based on a limited Google search, has a plausible claim to notability. That article can be saved. The cruise? Not so much. - Dravecky (talk) 15:19, 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 merge to Ganesh Chaturthi. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit ganesh[edit]

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

This article seems to be about a float in a procession that was covered in fruit. Non notable imo, fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS & fails GNG.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Ganesh Chaturthi. This looks to be a large annual celebration of this festival, meriting at least a mention in the relevant article. LadyofShalott 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ganesh Chaturthi. Not finding enough sources for a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - new section "Celebrations in Hyderabad" - then Redirect to Ganesh Chaturthi. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for a stand alone article. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ganesh Chaturthi. Isn't notable by the search engine test, but it would be useful to this to get a section or mention in Ganesh Chaturthi. Upjav (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - to Ganesh Chaturthi. CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:08, 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 to keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2014; 18:12 (UTC)

New American Gospel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. I tried to find additional sources but only found user reviews. No US charting either. http://www.billboard.com/artist/306414/lamb-god/chart perhaps other charts may exist. Again, I couldn't find anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references, the album has sold over 100,000 copies in America alone, that should make it meet the guidelines and I have found and added more reviews which Walter couldn't find. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added a link to http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Lamb_of_God/New_American_Gospel/183, which isn't a reliable source, a web store, again not a reliable source, and a primary source from the band itself. That goes to support my statement that I couldn't find any additional reliable sources. The metal-archives.com lists additional reviews though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That don't change the fact that I have added more reviews. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not referenced. Revolver was already sourced. What are "CMJ" and "NME"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are referenced they are included in the "primary source" and NME is a highly popular magazine in the UK. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And CMJ is an American magazine. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a review from Allmusic. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Link backups up the CMJ REVIEW but cannot be used on page because it is archived http://archive.today/VdkJG Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following link may also not be good enough to use on the page but it most certainly backs up proof of all the reviews mentioned. http://www.fishpond.co.uk/Music/New-American-Gospel-Lamb-of-God/0039841434521 Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to prove the above link isn't a fluke, what is the odds a random eBay seller stumbles on that website? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lamb-Of-God-New-American-Gospel-CD-2000-Prosthetic-Metal-Blade-Records-NEW-/360529890669 Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After Walter Görlitz prodded this last month I turned it into a redirect, because I agreed at the time that it was unlikely to be notable. Looking at it again in light of the sources dug up by Lukejordan02 I think the handful of reviews are are probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG, though of course better referencing would be ideal. Perhaps a request at WP:RX would be fruitful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major (read studio album) by a well-known band. If this were something like a limited edition or regional EP, then I'd agree on deleting, but as an album-level release, my opinion is that it should stay.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if the album is from a major or a minor artist, each album must have its own level of notability. Albums cannot piggyback on the notability of the creator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As someone more inclined to inclusionism than not, my opinion remains unchanged. While it is not a work I personally am familiar with (not really a LOG fan), I feel that its status as a studio album is notability on its own, being that it was released by a fairly big act. Again, if it were the 2001 Eastern Canada Club Tour EP, I'd agree with you, but I feel LP albums have more notability on the basis of being albums, and the act which recorded them.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this album is notable. Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Looks like there might just be enough out there to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. I'm thinking that since it's by a band as big as Lamb of God, there probably exist more offline sources (in print magazines) that could be used as well. The Metal-Archives reference should be removed though, as it is definitely not a reliable source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like the sources identified by User:Lukejordan02 are probably just about enough to pop this over the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 25 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 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rathaavara[edit]

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

there is no evidence that the film has entered filming, the project was just announced and casting has not even been confirmed, it is too soon for an article per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. [f,kgeto4rfw;dfsv,;rjg0iorpoer-594999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggpppppppppppptuo[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to the article's recreation should it become notable at some future point. Way too soon per nom. The film was only announced on social media last week. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per being TOO SOON. Allow return when notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. violates the guideline at WP:NFFTheQ Editor (Talk) 22:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheQ Editor:: While I agree it does not meet WP:NFF and is simply too soon, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:: You're rigt, it is a guideline not a policy. My fault. It had been a long day.TheQ Editor (Talk) 13:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:04, 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.

Create: Rathaavara has completed filming and is in its post-production stages. An article is has been created under the title "Rathavara", which isn't the original title of the film. Please redirect it to Rathaavara. Kannada123 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya (Canadian singer)[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. A search for sources seems to turn up mainly other bios based on this one. --Mdann52talk to me! 12:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. The poor guy doesn't even have enough fans to edit the article, he is doing it all for himself.[21][22] - Sweet Nightmares 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "official website" is just product advertisement (aimed at the very very gullible): "His philanthropy, exemplary devotion, and humanitarian aid have become a source of inspiration for millions of people on the planet.". :) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Official websites" are almost always for promotional purposes — that's the very nature of the beast, and its why we don't accept them as sufficient referencing in and of themselves to support encyclopedia articles. But the fact that his own website is promotional is irrelevant, if the reliable sourcing is present to counter its advertorial tendencies with neutral content — and as of now, that sourcing is present. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written is definitely problematic, but he unconditionally passes WP:NMUSIC #8 on the basis of three Juno Award nominations (Most Promising Male Vocalist in 1991 and both Francophone Album of the Year and Artist of the Year in 1993). The sourcing problems likely result from the fact that at the time he was credited as Francis Martin rather than as Kaya, which is a new stage name he adopted in 2011 after several years out of the business (see [23], for starters.) Keep, I'll work on cleaning it up. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. Keep, then. Here's a list of the awards and references:

1993 - Male Vocalist of the Year[24]
1993 - Best Selling Francophone Album[25]
1991 - Most Promising Male Vocalist of the Year[26]

- Sweet Nightmares 17:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've had my eye on this thing for ages and, yes, it is pretty bad but the awards make him notable. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added quite a bit of referencing — certainly some more would still be a good idea, but the challenge is that I don't have access to a database archive of French-language media from the 1990s (which is when the largest amount of coverage of him would have been published), so I have to rely mainly on web-accessible sources for the moment — and have toned down some of the promotional language and the trivia. One problem I'm still having is that while I'm finding a lot of general acknowledgements that he recorded two unsuccessful albums before his commercial breakthrough, I'm not finding hide nor hair of their titles (there's one pre-Drôle album credited to him by discogs.com, but for a variety of reasons I'm not confident enough that it's really him, rather than a different musician who merely happened to have the same name, to add it here without another source for confirmation.) However, even as a still imperfect work in progress it's in considerably better shape than it was at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,for the record, this was a request sent in by OTRS, however, that should not affect your !votes at all :) --Mdann52talk to me! 06:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The person meets WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and criteria 8.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:07, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.Z.[edit]

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

no story of importance to see - blp complaint that the name is WIZ, nothing to see there also - Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this [27] hints at notability, but it´s not enough by itself. It´s a little tricky to know which is the right WIZ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another, but less valid, source: [28]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Three of the four external links in this article are defunct. The supporters of this article should try to get the page's sources improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I´ve googled a bit, and the best I could find was the MTV article, [29]. That surprised me a little, considering how many videos/songs with their own WP-articles we say he directed. I´m happy to reconsider if there are more/better sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This calls him "One of the biggest names in British music videos" and suggests that he has won multiple awards (as does this). Here's a Music week article confirming one of the awards mentioned. This is pretty good as well. A Google search for Wiz "factory films" or Wiz "oil factory" does confirm many of the credits for the videos claimed, even if it doesn't turn up much in the way of material talking directly about him. I think there's enough there. His name, incidentally, appears to be "WIZ" (without the periods) in most sources. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more sources, perhaps Music Week is closest to reliable. The Music Week site have some promising search-hits: [30]. BTW, Wiz is a disambiguationpage, should he then be "WIZ (music video director)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:48, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the U.K. Music Video Awards do not seem to be notable awards. Is there evidence to the contrary? --Bejnar (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have a WP-article, but that is also unsourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 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, Michig (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's unfortunate that, currently, there are no higher profile or notable sources of information on this director, as his body of work is impressive. At the very least, the page should be kept from breaking the links on all the song articles that mention his direction of their respective music videos. Down10 ^TACO 03:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think that´s a good reason for keeping the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is too bad, given his claimed body of work, that more interest has not been taken of him in reliable publications. His awards do not seem to be notable either. There does seem to be a "nest" of involving Promo News, David Knight and the U.K. Music Video Awards that seeks to promote certain videos which are not otherwise recognized as notable. --Bejnar (talk) 17:07, 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, SpinningSpark 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what Black Kite found, I found (not available online) an article about him: Smarts, Gordon (22 April 2009). "WIZ kid behind Kasabian cover: bizarre", The Sun, p. 18. It refers to him as "Top photographer and video director Andrew Whiston, a.k.a. WIZ". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:17, 23 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 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Dickson MBE[edit]

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

Non notable plastic surgeon. Being awarded an MBE is not enough Gbawden (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO states differently. And expands with refs. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ANYBIO says "a well-known and significant award or honor." Getting an MBE certainly helps. But some honor handed out en masse by one particular leader in one country is not automatically "significant." This appears to be a less exclusive honor than several related ones. The relevant article indicates there is no stated limit to how many MBEs can be awarded in a given year. Have any such honors been handed out to persons for things other than great achievements, such as to curry political favor, or to a friend of no particular accomplishments? What if the leader of any other country of population 60 something million handed out an honor to someone. Automatically notable as well? We should not hand over the keys to Wikipedia notability to any one national leader with a box full of ribbons to hand out each year. There should still be reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which this does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also: See also Kentucky Colonel, Order of the Long Leaf Pine, Order of the Palmetto, Rhode Island Commodore,Sagamore of the Wabash. All recipients automatically notable? Why should there be British Exceptionalism when it comes to honors? Edison (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I am in favour of medical biographies generally, and it is an area in which we are lacking, we tend to stick to very senior doctors only, and I don't find that this gentleman has (yet) reached that stage. The sourcing is presently insufficient for a BLP. The general consensus is that MBEs are worthy but not Wikipedia-significant (unless they've played professional football); the response is "maybe, tell me more" to OBEs and we routinely keep CBEs and above. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:26, 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 List of Romanian football champions. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liga I Final Tables[edit]

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

There is a similar article, List of Romanian football champions, but much better written. Eddie Nixon (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to existing article, possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 09:20, 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 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchel Hahn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of unclear notability. Wikicology (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shouldn't this be a speedy delete since it has been re-created despite having been deleted in two AfDs? Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:00, 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) 18:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Non-notable football/soccer player. Subject not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:FOOTY (no international appearances), and lacks in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Closing admin should SALT this article title: three recreations and three unanimous AfDs should be enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dirtlawyer1. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:40, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Article reads like a memorial. Non notable soldier Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more precise as to how the article sounds like a memorial? Also, Tadeusz Anders was the youngest brother of Władysław Anders. This article is to further expand on the Anders military family. Adamstasz (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't make articles to nobody for their brothers or sisters. We only care for everybody's own notability. This person does not look so notable to me. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of this article was a result of the Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America project. There are personal files of his located at the archives of the Józef Piłsudski Institute of America, as cited in the bibliography of the article. Adamstasz (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I only replied to your reference to the brother('s notability which cannot be inherited). Did not even vote. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree - familial relations is not an argument. I retract that statement. Adamstasz (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojct userfy under Wikipedia:GLAM/Józef Piłsudski Institute of America. Unfortunately, this entry does fail WP:SOLDIER, and WP:BIO states that being a relative to a famous person is not enough for notability. Now, if the Institute published an article which would explain why this person was important, or such... this is not sufficient. Keep However, being awarded Virtuti Militari does the trick - this is WP:SOLDIER first criteria. Ping User:Gbawden, User:Adamstasz, User:Why should I have a User Name?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Withdraw my nomination without prejudice - My fault, didn't see the Virtuti Militari. However if there is no citation for the VM I will renominate Gbawden (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations - one is from an English-language list of Virtuti Militari recipients. The other is from a Polish-language list that is more precise: it states that Tadeusz Konstanty Anders was awarded the fifth class Virtuti Militari for his service as Major in the Polish Armed Forces in the 1939-1945 time period. Not to be confused with Tadeusz Andersz who was a captain and pilot in the same service, same time period, and is listed several names below. Adamstasz (talk) 18:09, 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 04:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul salam mk[edit]

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

Unremarkable student politician - "famous" for being secretary of Samastha Kerala Sunni Students Federation. Non notable imo and no actual refs in the article that we can check Gbawden (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A probably autobiography (author User:Asmk1990, combining initials and year of birth); being involved in student organisations is not inherently evidence of biographical notability, so I am not sure this even passes CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete after checking (I don't know how) if it was previously deleted; I have noticed that most names beginning in small letters are re-creation of deleted items. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable student politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and may be an autobio — Ascii002 (talk • ctb • guestbook) 15:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the general notability guideline. CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:10, 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 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Nicole[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG or PORNBIO. Only awards are scene related and the article is riddled with non RS... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as nominator states. Only wins are scene-related. Fails GNG with only passing mentions by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spartaz's and Gene93k's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two winners, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- scene awards no longer count as you have been told in previous Afds. Your vote is therefore based on a false premis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the notability guidelines for porn bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:10, 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 04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bisk[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 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 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. Not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent in-depth sources that would provide evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 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. Tawker (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fenster[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. Runs Twitter accounts for some hotels in Las Vegas and published some guidebooks on a small press a while back. Page set up by a user who appears to have, at the very best, a COI, and probably autobiographising too. Only sources are trivial mentions on Las Vegas publications. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment fails WP:NAUTHOR, not to mention WP:GNG on sources. AdventurousMe (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Much of what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:59, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hogarth[edit]

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

Non notable, written like a resume. He is on a lot of committees and does a lot of advising but don't see him meeting WP:Academics Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – written as a poorly done resume. No notability. – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 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 04:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's No Cheese on this Cheeseburger[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Does not meet notability guideline for films or general notability guideline. Contested proposed deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note set up by a single purpose account, User:QuintonLeister which may be connected to the movie's director, Quinton Paul Leister. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the director well and I like the movie's name FWIW, but at this point in time I can't find anything to show that this short passes notability guidelines or that filming has even started or finished. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF and WP:NFF. At the kindest, this article is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above. Frmorrison (talk) 16:11, 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 speedily closed and will redirect the article appropriately. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Bharati[edit]

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

Unreferenced and while the term comes up in Google, not finding something that actually defines it. If somebody can find some reliable sources that define the term, I will happily withdraw this nomination. Safiel (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Google Books the more common name in English is Bharat Mata, or Bharatmata, which pulls up a tonne of results. Couple of examples here - http://books.google.com/books?id=5SdW2L3V-gIC&pg=PA48&dq=bharat+mata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MzzsU9bOB8jj8AX_hoKIBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bharat%20mata&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=OegOWaEeLgoC&pg=PA149&dq=bharat+mata&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MzzsU9bOB8jj8AX_hoKIBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bharat%20mata&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Actually, it is much easier for me to simply close this AfD and redirect the article to the existing article Bharat Mata. Unfortunately, I did not know that until you pointed it out. :) Safiel (talk) 05:00, 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. Sandstein 08:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Brandy[edit]

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

WP:UNDUE, WP:FANCRUFT, and already summarized more concisely (and appropriately) at the main Brandy Norwood article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it also is very poorly sourced Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article different from List of artists influenced by Madonna or List of artists influenced by Beyoncé? Malcolmo (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main Madonna biography article is VERY large and the list of artists influenced by her (which is very extensive purely from a numbers standpoint) uses more than 200 sources - obviously, that's well warranted. The Beyoncé one could easily be kept in her main article as well, but that's not what we're discussing. See WP:WAX. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is well-sourced. And the list of artists influenced by her is also very, very lengthy. You can't possibly fit the article with Brandy's main biography, which is also rather extensive. No artist is listed without a proper source. Malcolmo (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It already fits perfectly fine in the legacy section of Brandy's article without the excess fluff (which resembles a fansite more than an encyclopedia), trivial information ("So-and-So is my favorite Brandy album!", etc.), and excessive quotes. And there are several artists listed without sources. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not trivial information, it is crucial to the actual article, and describes how a plethora of leading artists within a genre have acknowledged her as an inspiration to her work. It seems as if you are downplaying the entire genre of R&B music right now... These quotes are not invented and far from fansite-ish. They are actual statements by professionals within the business. Find me an artist in the list that has no source attached? Clearly the article is vaild and should be kept, wether it can be improved, that is another debate.

Malcolmo (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Chase is really getting at is that this page is a WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - But whoever claims so, is wrong. The content of this article is not to be found in Brandy's main article. And it wouldn't make sense to merge the list to her main biography. The list is long enough to have its own article. And there is additional explanation, which is also sourced as a context as to why this list makes sense. Malcolmo (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other stuff exists is no defense. What "influenced" means is just to open to interpretation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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. Michig (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Ziolkowski[edit]

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

Deprodded by anon without any helpful rationale. My prod argument was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Ping User:123chess456, User:7Sidz, User:NatGertler. Please note BLP vandalism; suggest vandal block for User:Userameisusername. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as even the game he made (Toontown Rewritten) only warrants a paragraph in the main Toontown article. But the project might become well covered, if he does it well, and he could use it as a springboard into a variety of programs. Could become notable in the future. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, usernameisusername only has 1 warning, which I just gave him. I oppose the proposed block. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search and the sources used within the article were not about him, but individual works. His name or role as a creator, if mentioned at all, is a passing mention. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 06:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Very limited coverage on the article's subject, most of which is in-passing with the creation of Toontown Rewritten. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:42, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lewis (film director)[edit]

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

Claim for notability is as a "film director, producer, writer and musician". Fails WP:DIRECTOR, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:MUSICBIO due to lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Location (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails to show that the subject has received any significant coverage; and my quick search fails to find such sources. Ping me if any reliable sources with in depth coverage of the subject are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , Well known director and his film Beyond Treason was Berkeley Film Festival winner as well. Other films include - Peddling Influence - 2013, The Ron Paul Uprising - 2012, Blood of Patriots - 2011, Don't Tread on Me - 2010, Enemy of the State: Camp FEMA Part 2 - 2010, Camp FEMA - 2010, Life on the Edge of a Bubble - 2009, Washington You're Fired - 2008, 911 Ripple Effect - 2007, One Nation Under Siege - 2006, Beyond Treason - 2005. Award winning film director. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Delete No in depth coverage in independent reliable sources found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim that he is a notable film director is not borne out by sources. No convincing alternative notability either. jps (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with jps and others above. No reliable, independent coverage for claims of notability. (Peacock blog post doesn't count.) Parabolooidal (talk) 01:42, 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 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chanfray[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Fringe coverage limited to some books with "mysterious" and "unexplained" in their titles that don't qualify as reliable sources. The single independent source mentions him in passing as an eccentric playboy and nothing more. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had serious difficulty in finding any reliable sources, he does not appear to be notable. The article is filled with fringe claims which cannot be back up by reliable sources. Goblin Face (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources, per GF unsupported nonsense makes up a substantial portion of the article. Coverage in fringe sources is passing mentions only. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:21, 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 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration on the Rights of Expelled and Deported Persons[edit]

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

Article lacks any WP:SECONDARY secondary sources that indicate that the Declaration has ever received any notice whatsoever other than from its draftees Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a college summer project by a group (CHRIJ) at Boston College that is run by university students and faculty. Like most college projects (from any time of year), it hasn't achieved any true attention from any media outlet- other than the college's own newspaper. If the group itself had an entry I'd suggest redirecting there, but there doesn't seem to be such an entry and I'm unsure as to whether or not the CHRIJ would really qualify for one. It's a noble attempt (the declaration) at trying to solve a very pressing issue, but it hasn't received any coverage to speak of and fails notability guidelines. Of course there's also the issue that it reads like the CHRIJ is trying to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their viewpoints, so even if there was coverage we'd likely still have to WP:TNT the article to remove all of the promotional and non-neutral viewpoints- but there isn't any, so delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of mention in secondary sources. (The soapboxing isn't the biggest problem here, as the article could easily be trimmed down to a few sentences.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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. I have reviewed the arguments and found several !votes to focus on the political argument rather than the article itself. Article itself does not have any mentions in the RS references on page despite editors claims to put them in over a week ago, therefore notability and RS concerns remain unaddressed despite considerable amount of time. In addition, article contains POV issues which have not been resolved. Furthermore, major concerns with possible COI editing on page. Tawker (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNRWA Reform Initiative[edit]

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

Pr WP:DIVERSE, I don´t see any secondary sources here; nothing to indicate that this is significant, Huldra (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <So I read this today, and this is exactly why I feel the page is needed. UNRWA is a United Nations body, that is prpetrating war cimres, housing rockets and terrorists, and is funded by 38 democratic countries, yet they are directly engaged in helping HAMAS wage war: http://www.timesofisrael.com/3-idf-soldiers-killed-in-booby-trapped-unrwa-clinic/ Also like this one <http://www.timesofisrael.com/rockets-found-in-unrwa-school-for-third-time/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.99.193 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that the article serves an important political purpose. Sorry but you are in the wrong place as we don't do that here. Zero^talk 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On closer look all the refs do refer to the organization itself. I did find an article in Jerusalem Post by its director which was only news source I could find in a quick search. Unless someone wants to do a lot of work and probably make it about the institute itself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <although more sources need to be added, quick search has show that this information is relative. Its now been three times UNRWA facilities have housed rockets, and that makes it three individual war crimes according to the definition by the UN. People need to know if UNRWA is helping to perpetrate war crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.99.193 (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your words actually support deletion, see WP:NOTADVOCATE. Zero^talk 07:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This articles seems to be a advertisement for this initiative but it doesn't rely on several secondary sources. It is also heavily oriented and again, without secondary sources it will be hard to make it neutral. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly POV article about non-notable initiative of non-notable "research centre", based entirely on partisan and primary sources. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it appears that a large part of the article (in fact, all of the article as originally submitted on 20 July[31]) is a copy, or extremely close paraphrase, of an article in the Jerusalem Post of 298 January 2014 by the director of this project.[32] RolandR (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above description of the research center as "non-notable" is based completely on the editor's opinion and is highly POV. By just doing a quick internet search, it is evident that the Center for Near East Policy Research has produced a significant amount of noteworthy material, and its works are referenced by other news organizations. The article does not seem like an advertisement, but an accurate description of the initiative (URI) it has launched based on significant research, as noted by the various sources provided in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.155.41 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about CNEPR, it is about URI. Show us secondary sources about URI. Zero^talk 13:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Designed like a home page for this "initiative" instead of being article about it. Improper use of Wikipedia for political promotion. Zero^talk 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some of this information might be appropriate to add to the UNRWA article, this page is promotion and the effort is not notable (at least not as of yet). Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite the references to the organization mentioned in the previous delete comment, NBC, Sky News, Kuwait News, Times of Israel, and Jerusalem Post all have articles pertaining to this direct topic- as new as from this morning. This page needs additional citation, including the above mentioned Jerusalem Post, NBC, Sky News, Kuwait News, and Times of Israel articles. It is as simple as searching for UNRWA rockets on Google quick search.

Can you provide the URLs of those articles that refer to the "UNRWA Reform Initiative" for editors to evaluate ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, can you insert such info in the article? Adding sourced info is what it is all about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 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 (deliver) @ 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that every "keep" above is from ÌPs with few or no other edits. Also this IP [33] voted "keep" twice. And all the IPs belongs to the same service provider: Bezec International. Draw your own conclusions. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article, but an advert for a partisan think tank. The creator is a WP:SPA. Someone should ask the editor if they work for the organisation which is the subject of this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs considerable work and some pruning, but the initiative is noteworthy, has been referred to by multiple secondary sources, and is in response to longstanding concerns about the need for reform in UNRWA. I have added references in the article.Cpsoper (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it needs pruning and I will do something during the next couple of days - at least references. In order to get it linked to, the reform initiative could be linked to from the UNRWA page, which already has a number of discussions of criticism.

6 Relations with Israel 6.1 1 October 2004 incident 6.2 Peter Hansen 6.3 6 January 2009 incident 6.4 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict 7 Investigation by the United States Congress 8 Kirk Amendment to investigate number of refugees 9 Loss of Canadian support 10 Problems with Hamas Dian_Kjaergaard(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.173.182 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC) - Sorry, I forgot to login and sign the preceding. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outrageously polemical POV article, with an intrinsic bias that cannot be corrected; it's not about a "reform"--it's about an attack by[ the CNEPR on another organization. The UNRW 's actions in the area have indeed been in the news lately, and are noteworthy enough for a section in the article on that group, where it already is--as Dian Kjaergaard recognizes. An attempt at this additional coverage is so inappropriate that I am tempted to use G11, as I would if it were an attack by one company or another. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. It appears that the Center for Near East Policy Research is not an unbiased group, and that it has serious axes to grind. It is very difficult to achieve NPOV when dealing with politics in the Middle East. This article appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. --Bejnar (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like an ad for a certain cause. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:36, 15 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, Monty ₈₄₅ 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a consensus has been established here. There have been five Keep !votes, four of them from IPs with no other edits, and nine Delete !votes from experienced editors. All that relisting (for a second time) will do is attract more random IPs. RolandR (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RolandR that a consensus for deletion is very clear. Zero^talk 12:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, agree with you both. I have never seen an AfD like this, note that the IPs seem to come from the same service provider, too. Huldra (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge a modicum of further patience, this is a strongly divisive issue, and both sides of this debate ought to be heard before an axe falls, the article has already been modified substantially to address some of the issues that have been raised, and there may yet be other opinions (I have not canvassed any, directly or indirectly, and I hope others here can say the same). I agree it is still in need of radical reform to be encyclopaedic. As to the issue of notability, there are clear secondary sources. Cpsoper (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources. The 2 press article given in the articles are not enough to assess any notoriary but they don't even mention any "UNRWA Reform Initiative". They just report unfamous propaganda around the refugees and the right of return :

"The United Nations Relief and Work Agency is the only UN refugee agency dedicated to a single group of people. It is the only agency that designates individuals as original refugees if they lived in the area for a minimum of two years, that acknowledges the descendants of original refugees as refugees as well, and the only one that actively encourages its clients to act on their “right of return.”

This has no notoriaty among scholars. For an organisation more than 60 years old, that's what we would need to keep this article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-organized the article on UNRWA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Works_Agency_for_Palestine_Refugees_in_the_Near_East. I have not removed any content, but tried to show a clean, clear structure throughout. I have changed two or three wordings to make them more neutral and added a bit of material and references. The next step will be to merge any useful UNRWA criticism points from this page (U.R.I.) to the UNRWA article. Then I will re-write the U.R.I. so that it describes the focus and results of the initiative rather than the broad background which has now been clarified in the UNRWA article. The U.R.I. article will also include some references to documentation, publications, etc, instead of including a huge list. I need a for more days to do this. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what I think you may have done is add a somewhat disproportionate amount of negative material to that article. I remind you about the need for cautious editing in in this area. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I think if you look carefully, I have actually added to the UNRWA article many positive things and acknowledgement of how difficult UNRWA's work is.

I think the reason you think there is more negative material is because I have used structure to reveal clearly what was already written in the article! Please re-read in the light of this information. And if you have specific suggestions for trimming, let me know. I fully support the need for dispassionate care.

Note also that the article has a very large amount of neutral and positive information about UNRWA which editors (not sure who) have pointed out is poorly documented. I would be willing to help clean that up, too!

Finally - please check the URI stub.Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,some of it is in the presentation. including the wide spacing of the material and the breaking of related material into separate paragraphs. But some of it is also in the wording, and in reporting such things as investigations by the US Congress as if they proved the facts alleged, and using an excessive number of quotes from those taking one side of the issue,and including sentences and words of evaluation ("However, there seem to be some serious problems". There are also some selective presentations of facts: "Pinner wrote in 1959 that the number of refugees...."); Pinner is not a neutral source, but a committed advocate, and the data he asserts is half a century old, yet presented in the article as part of the analysis of the current situation. As for balance, sections 6, 7, sand 8, almost all of which is negative, occupy about 70% of the article in length (not word count). I give the same advice as I give with my usual area, commercial COI: minimize adjectives.

I think your work does have considerable merit, and I offer these as suggestions on what to look at. I hope you will do some appropriate editing at integrating the material. Further discussion does not really belong here--I have copied our exchange over to the article talk p., DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DGG - let us continue on the URI page itself - and on the main UNRWA page itself. I think our collaboration could be very fruitful. 87.49.173.182 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment a little on the main article page, but I generally try to avoid controversial political subjects. (For one thing, I generally want to retain the ability to use admin actions if needed). However, I think there is no reason for a separate page and no reason to comment there. It's as if we had separate pages for for the various individual initiatives of particular pressure and advocacy groups. The information belongs in two places only: First, the article on the group, if it is one of their major initiatives, and then the focus is on their participation, not the general issue--a link to it is normally sufficient. Second, the article on the matter at controversy, if they are one of the major participants as judged by people external to the group, and then only in proportion to the amount devoted to other participants in the debates. If groups A B, C, D .... Z all support or oppose something, we don't report separately in individual sections on what each of them have to say, nor do we necessarily include quotations from all of them--only from those that, based on outside comments, seem to be paid the most attention to. Anything more than that amounts to advocacy, not encyclopedic reporting. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 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. Consensus is that this is WP:OR. If anybody really wants to try salvaging parts of it for merging, they can ask for the material to be userfied to that end. Sandstein 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religious symbolism of unity of opposites[edit]

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

Appears to be entirely original research. How these symbols are indicating the "unity of opposites" is not sourced to any reliable sources. jps (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally my rule of thumb is to tread very gently when the subject is religion and to give as much latitude as possible when articles on religious topics show up at AfD. In my experience that has usually been how the community seems to work as well. But this article fails pretty much every test we have. To be frank I can't really even grasp what the subject is. The sources hugely fail RS and I can't find anything on Google that remotely supports a case for notability. Only the fact that this is a religiously themed article prevents me from treating it as a suspected hoax or maybe an A-11 CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete By all appearances this is just something someone made up. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the content which might be salvaged (with better source references) into unity of opposites. Other parts of the article should be discarded if unverifiable. Gccwang (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I'm leaning towards. I get what the article is trying to say: basically, it's looking at "unity of opposites" in religious symbols. Basically, it's a list of religious symbols that hold two meanings that are normally seen as distinctly separate but are united in the religious symbol. For example, the ankh can mean both death/life and male/female. I get where they're trying to go with this and it's not something that's just made up since it is referenced somewhat in various different texts (examples: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. [39], [40]). However the problem here is that there isn't a lot of stuff that specifically focuses on religious symbolism. It's mentioned somewhat in passing and often vaguely referred to, but for the most part this is pretty much WP:OR on behalf of the article creator because it's not exactly explicitly stated in the way that Wikipedia seems to like. I agree that the symbols they've listed would fall under the banner of "Religious symbolism of unity of opposites" and if they were writing a paper on this, I'd read it. In any case, I'm leaning towards merging some of this into unity of opposites and listing parts of it as an example. The ankh should be easy enough to verify since there are multiple sources that talk about the symbol's dual nature, but other parts will likely be a little bit harder. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is no evidence that the article under discussion is not WP:SYNTH. It does seem likely that out there somewhere in the scholarly literature are accounts addressing the presumptive topic of the article as a whole. But unless and until the article is written based on such sources, I think the article should be deleted as OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also sanction a smerge to the existing unity of opposites article. At least some of the references could possibly incorporated there, but others have expressed concern over the quality of those references, so I leave the matter to better minds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced material with Unity of opposites. The real topic seems the concept being a part of religious teachings and traditions. I don't see much value in bringing together the symbols of this in one list (besides it being OR.) Anyway the other article could use more information on religion to balance out some of its emphasis on Marxist philosophy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm concerned that this jumble of religious symbolism does not actually reflect any scholarship - it seems to be purely the result of a small number of editor's opinions. Without reliable sources there is no way to know if these religious concepts share any common features, hence it's safer to just get rid of this kind of content. It's useless and has no encyclopedic value. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. It is possible that sources on this subject may exist - but none of the existing content could legitimately be included in an article. About.com is not a scholarly source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As an "IP", I'm not sure if I can "vote"; however, I'd like to comment that this is potentially a valid WP topic. As it currently stands it is woefully lacking in WP:RS-es. A bit of research can validate many if not all of these items. For example, I just referenced Kangiten with a good source (based on my research for a related article). I suggest that for now it be converted to an annotated list. In addition, please note that the Wikipedia: Deletion policy does *not* include a currently poorly sourced article as a reason for deletion; instead: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" [or] "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources." I assert that a thorough (or even cursory) attempt would negate deletion. —Eric, IP=71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure unsourced and unsourceable OR. I can see nothing worth saving or merging anywhere else, as I highly doubt that reliable sources exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—Is "unsourceable" the result of an actual check, or simply personal judgement? In less than 1 minute I found this:[41], which could be used as a source for several of the items. I am putting this in the 'Further reading' section for anybody wishing to attempt actual due diligence. Although tempted to adopt this article since the originator (cf. contribs) does not seem to be active; I shall not. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although that source is associated with a university, it's not an academic source. The ideas it presents are typical Joseph Cambell-influenced syncretism and do not represent a scholarly viewpoint. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article topic is by virtual definition, a syncretism; the source is a peer-reviewed journal, and as such is a secondary source which is preferred in the WP-sense. An "academic source" would tend to be a primary source, and thus is less-preferred. And tangentially, just because Joseph Campbell represents a "typical" viewpoint (rather than a "scolarly" one), it would be no less valid as far as WP is concerned. Wikipedia is only supposed to present reliably verifiable information, not to judge it. —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:36, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Consciousness Research[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Not a notable organization. What's worse, there appears to be two different but separate organizations! One based in Oklahoma and one based in ~~India~~ Canada. jps (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Subject fails GNG and ORG. Sources fail RS. Google yielded nothing that rings the N Bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - thoroughly nonnnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find where the ICR is mentioned in this book, but this isn't enough to show notability to the point where we'd keep the article. There are other sources, but they'd be considered WP:SPS and/or too WP:FRINGE for Wikipedia to consider them usable as a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, and because half the article's refs are taken from the ICR's own publications. --Seduisant (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sufficient coverage in relaible independent secondary sources. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self-promotional spam, Second Quantization (talk) 22:07, 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 keep. Tawker (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I cannot find any means by which this person is notable. Not WP:ARTIST and not WP:PROF. Page appears mostly as a soapbox to me and I can't see how to fix it since the person simply doesn't seem notable. jps (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references and links in the article show he was the focus of a feature article in The Atlantic, was featured in a segment on CBS news, and does appear to be "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" per WP:ARTIST. Gccwang (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had more sources like The Atlantic interview, I certainly would not be here. However, I can't help but think that this doesn't quite rise to the level of coverage we would want for a WP:BLP. jps (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple independent reliable sources in this article including The Atlantic, Forbes, Wired, CBS, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and here is one from the Washington Post [42]. This guy is definitely notable WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 18:16, 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.