Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 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. Deor (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agbon Kingdom[edit]

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

I don't think that this is a real kingdom Prelogger (talk) 22:37, 16 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 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is real: [1]. Will look for more refs later. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC) I've added some more refs and a few citations at the article. Definitely needs more editing. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge into Urhobo people It's a self-proclaimed empire and would be more accurately called a clan. It's a real group of people ([2] and [3]) but they are very understudied, therefore not apparently notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Urhobo_people#Indigenous_government_and_politics ~~at least until there are more independent sources that can support a standalone article~~. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Keep added per reasoning below. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have enough sources to demonstrate that it exists as a unique topic. Current recogniztion is not needed for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very valid subject that deserves a stand alone article. It represents an identity (like a subtribe of Urhobo), just like Igbomina tribe. There may not be wide online coverage, but I'm sure it's very well covered in Nigerian books. I don't even understand how the user that nominated this article can think it isn't a "real" kingdom, when there are valid references on the article--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The nom may expect a kingdom to be rather larger than this, but here we might substitute "chief" for "king". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 24 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chadrivia River[edit]

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

No sources since creation. Searches for this river on internet unproductive. – S. Rich (talk) 22:07, 16 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 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find any evidence of even the existence of this place. The claim that a 26 mile river in Chad is only "recently discovered" is dubious.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax. They're planning to develop it as a high-end tourist destination: Chadrivia-ra. I can sell you a prime riverside lot at an amazing price. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As hoax. A newly discovered river with trout, a species not native to Chad. Although, I like the idea of some mad Scotsman having stocked a river which time forgot. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nine-year old hoax on Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of life[edit]

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

Hard to tell what this is exactly intended to be due to its incoherence. Certainly comes across as a essay-like POV fork of various articles, but in particular life, Meaning of life. A closer examination of the sourcing indicates various randomly selected scientists including at least some who aren't experts in relevant fields (i.e. biologists or psychologists), various physicists talking about biology, including one whackjob who is known for his utterly absurd ideas about anything biological (Hoyle), and one physicist who is so well known that he doesn't have a Wikipedia biography. (A completely arbitrary selection befitting an essay). Furthermore, the start point is also completely arbitrary "Starting in the 1930s, as physics, chemistry and biology were maturing as sciences, a number of scientists proposed thoughtful perspectives on the nature of life"; are we to believe that scientists only really started thinking about these things in the 1930s? Did Darwin not contemplate his tangled bank? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an introductory paragraph indicating that there is little overlap in the information presented in Nature of life compared to the topics covered in Life and Meaning of life. The Nature of life article now cross-references articles on these other related topics. Thus I am not attempting to evade the spirit of NPOV, nor is it a POV fork.

I disagree that Fred Hoyle is a whackjob. He is a prominent English astronomer with many awards, and is noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis (see article Fred Hoyle). My inclusion of Hoyle’s ideas on the possible nature of extraterrestial life were not meant as an endorsement of those ideas but were included to make the point that life is not necessarily based on Earth-like chemistry. His ideas, presented in the novel The Black Cloud was described by the prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins as "one of the greatest science fiction novels ever written."

Another criticism was including “one physicist who is so well known that he doesn't have a Wikipedia biography.” The two physicists quoted in Nature of life were Erwin Schrödinger and Fred Hoyle and both of them do have Wikipedia biographies. The criticism may have referred to Henry Quastler who was a physician (not a physicist) with a specialty in radiation biology and information theory as applied to biology. He died at a relatively young age shortly after publishing his book “The Emergence of Biological Organization.”

A further criticism is that I started with the 1930’s. I have now included in my new introductory paragraph an indication that the historical views on the nature of life may be found in the article Life and I have restricted my considerations to the evidence bearing on the current molecular biology perspective. Although I did not discuss Darwin explicitly, Darwin’s ideas are embedded in my extensive discussion of Richard E. Michod’s book “Darwinian Dynamics.”

Chaya5260 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some obvious local problems (e.g. poor sourcing) but this is fundamentally not an encyclopedia article, but a secondary piece addressing a novel synthetic subject: no secondary sources collect and discuss these guys' notions like this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY WP:OR --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally arbitrary collection of opinions, mainly about abiogenesis, which, of course, already has its own article. Some of it appears to be about the definition of life, which is covered in the Life article, to which the title could be redirected. While the article itself is incoherent, much of its content could be used on other articles. An article on Henry Quastler is probably warranted (his wife, the artist Gertrude Quastler, is also notable). Paul B (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are other articles that cover the same topic that are better written. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Personal essay, OR, synth. I highly doubt that reliable sources can be found. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. I already co-opted some of it for Henry Quastler. Paul B (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that this random jumble of opinions is a sort of scrap book of research possibly related to other projects that the editor who created it was working on at the time. I do not think it makes sense to keep this around in article space, but possibly some of the content could be used elsewhere or sandboxed and userfied so that the editor in question can try to produce some content that is suitable for inclusion in some existing article. That having been said, I basically agree that the main articles life and abiogenesis probably would not benefit by the addition of such content, even if it were to be drastically edited and condensed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, no RS has this discussion, OR, no order, no focus, nonsense... - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ESSAY. Pretty simple really. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:02, 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 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashington–West Auckland Derby[edit]

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

Totally non-notable "rivalry". Two teams in a regional amateur league have played each other a handful of times and once there was a fight and it got a bit of coverage in the local paper. This absolutely does not make for a notable rivalry. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough. Kante4 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no history of it being notable and the meagre referencing only indicates some fighting and one game for promotion. Even the lead says it "gets a bit heated" - hardly an indication of notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and it's not even a real Derby as the two clubs are from different towns in different counties. IJA (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, no indication of WP:GNG, local newspaper reporting only for two teams at a very low level. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 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. Deor (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas-Baylor football rivalry[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this rivalry is notable. There seams to be no reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No !vote right now, but without any actual sources, there's nothing here that isn't already mentioned (with much better grammar, etc.) at Baylor Bears football#Arkansas. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Formalizing my !vote: Delete. I haven't found anything substantive to suggest that this rivalry is discussed enough in WP:RS to warrant a standalone article. The mention at Baylor Bears football#Arkansas appears sufficient. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have not had time to perform the WP:BEFORE research required to determine the notability of this game series as a rivalry, but per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no position yet. There may be historical implications that today are no longer there, but it could be worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's just not there. No sources in the article, nothing I can find on the "rivalry" itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still wading through lots of commentary and old newspaper articles on former Southwest Conference rivalries, and it's pretty clear that Arkansas' big rivalry in the old Southwest Conference before 1992 was Texas. As for the basics of the Arkansas-Baylor series, the teams first met in 1904, they played annually from 1927 to 1991 when both were members of the Southwest Conference, and the all-time series record is 33–35–2 (Arkansas leads). They have not played at all since 1991, and there does not appear to have been a great outcry by either fan base to renew the series or bemoaning its loss. There was no traveling trophy, and the series never acquired a nickname. However, none of that is definitive as to whether the series constituted a traditional college football rivalry in the past. It's going to come down to the media coverage of the series, and whether or not the media regularly characterized the series as a "rivalry" or not. I still have a lot more reading to do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary search results from Newspapers.com:

1. "Arkansas-Baylor football rivalry" produced zero articles.

2. "Arkansas-Baylor rivalry" yielded zero results.

3. "Baylor-Arkansas football rivalry" reveals multiple hits from a 1949 Associated Press wire article about match-ups in the Southwest Conference where the opposing coaches (in this case John Barnhill and Bob Woodruff) had common playing and/or coaching experience. The Baylor-Arkansas rivalry got a 40-word paragraph. The key word search variation did not produce any other results other than this same AP article published in multiple newspapers. In my evaluation, such one-time use of the word "rivalry" in a brief, one-paragraph mention is not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG.

4. "Baylor-Arkansas rivalry" produces a single 1982 article from The Waco Citizen (hometown newspaper of Baylor University). The 7-paragraph article gives a brief synopsis of the series history to date, and uses the word "rivalry" once. In my opinion, this constitute marginally "significant coverage," but is discounted as local coverage of the university.

5. "rivalry between Arkansas and Baylor" yielded one 1935 article from The Waco News-Tribune which employs the word "rivalry" once to describe the series in a 4-paragraph article about pregame practices and injuries. IMHO, this is a trivial mention and not "significant coverage," further discounted because it's an article from one of Baylor University's hometown newspapers.

6. "rivalry between Baylor and Arkansas" produces zero hits.

Granted there are numerous additional key word searches that can be performed, but I am not seeing in-depth coverage of this game series as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. My tentative reaction is that this was not a traditional college football rivalry, and was not covered as such in the mainstream media. Therefore, my current position is a "tentative delete," but I will keep looking in fairness to this old-time Southwest Conference match-up. There are still other searches to be performed before I remove the "tentative" from my !vote. I encourage other editors to conduct their own searches. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've exhausted my search parameters, and found no significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry, therefore my !vote is now a firm "delete." Most of the few trivial, incidental and non-significant mentions I did find of the series as a "rivalry" were in the local Waco, Texas newspapers. There's just not enough there to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dirtlawyer1. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nice work, DL. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every team meeting is a rivalry, even if the teams have met often. Without sourcing, calling this series of games a rivalry sufficiently notable for inclusion is original synthesis. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 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. Anyone who thinks a redirect might be useful may of course create one at this title. Deor (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Premier League Results[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. Kingjeff (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – However, other individual football teams also have sections based purely on previous results. Could this page be merged into the main premier league page, perhaps? M00036 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – WP:NSEASONS states that there should be well–sourced prose. Therefore, they're in violation of WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A stats article is not needed, results can be found on the mainarticle. Teamseasons have matches if a user is interested in them. Kante4 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Even the parent article comes close to violating that policy, but this one is way too far. – Pee Jay 18:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article is not needed as footballboxes with results exist on the season articles for the teams and the rest exist on main premier league season article. Also agree with above. QED237 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. All this stuff is or will be in other articles. How long would this article be by the end of the season? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content should be in 2014–15 Premier League, and no need for a separate article. Number 5 7 21:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the above comments, and accept that it is not needed. However, if it were to be added into the main article, how would it be done? (I'm new to Wikipedia, and so I don't know much about the requirements for inclusion in articles)M00036 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just the results table is used in the mainarticle, the footballboxes would be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also add prose to the article. Kingjeff (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014–15 Premier League. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I said Delete rather than Redirect as I don't see any reason that someone would search on the longer term "2014-15 Premier League Results" rather than "2014–15 Premier League" --Jersey92 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014–15 Premier League per Nfitz. Giant Snowman 09:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Redirect - Most of the content is already covered in "2014–15 Premier League", there is no point duplicating the content. IJA (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it will be very helpful if at least we link every result in the "Results Table" to the report. That way whoever wants to can go and pull up the full statistic page for each match. If Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, then we should facilitate the access to external sources with more detailed results. I kind of wish this was done to previous seasons as well. -- Kndimov (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be the form of prose. League season articles tend to lack prose. Kingjeff (talk) 21:26, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nicki Minaj feuds[edit]

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

There was an extensive "feuds" section on the Nicki Minaj page which me and fellow editors have now merged into the main body of the article (per WP:STRUCTURE's guideline to "achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against"). However, an editor has chosen to start a page which expands on these "feuds" and I see this as nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic information (Twitter spats, name calling, etc.), especially in light of the fact myself and others have merged the most notable, reliable and due material into the main article. I think this is a classic WP:POVFORK, owing excessive coverage to something that doesn't deserve it. —JennKR | ☎ 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for many reasons. The topic is not encyclopedic (a list of feuds with a pop star). The criteria for inclusion in this list is vague (what counts as a "feud" versus public disagreement?). Much of the content is speculation/subjective ("Nicki Minaj reportedly never confirmed or denied that the song was about Remy,[5] however Remy Ma remarked in a 2010 interview, "To this day I still feel like [the song] is a stab at me"). Gccwang (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not at all noteworthy outside the context of the Nicki Minaj article -- and barely noteworthy -- if at all -- even within that article for every reason listed by the foregoing user. 178.43.245.199 (talk) 03:06, 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 keep. - The article does need improvements but anyway High schools & uni's are usually kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coláiste na Coiribe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All secondary schools are notable. This is a full-time school in which Irish is the medium of instruction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:NSCHOOL, "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both", no mention of "All secondary schools are notable", or is there a link I have not seen yet? Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep (assuming the article will get moved from stub to something more substantial. - No references other than school web site; no third-party sources. There are some local news stories easily found in Google, but they are mainly about the building of the school (it is relatively recent), and subsequent funding issues. Nothing to make the school notable out of the many thousands of schools potentially covered by en.wp. (although I am sure that it is important to its community). LaMona (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, sometimes abbreviated as WP:OUTCOMES#Schools Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain Remember that that page is not policy -- it is a statement of what "often" happens. I'll place here some articles for some California high schools that might be a comparison:

* Albany High School

* Ventura High School

* Richmond High School

In comparison, the Coláiste na Coiribe article is clearly a stub, even though it was created in 2007. Would you like to expand it? That would be great. Here are some articles: [4] ; [5] ; [6]. I won't venture into it because I don't know anything about the area. But it does seem that there is potential content; in fact, some quite interesting content that could be added. LaMona (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:15, 24 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 #1-I withdraw my nomination. (Non-admin closure) --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belkıs Akkale[edit]

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

~~I don't think this meets WP:MUSICBIO. All the sources I can find are copies of the two-sentence biography referenced in the article. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I found significant coverage of her in books, so I withdraw my nomination. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose . The article is a stub and maybe it is not properly sourced. But Belkis Akkale is a well known singer and deserves to have an article. In stead of deleting we should ask for expansion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 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. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Doria[edit]

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

Remarkably non-notable, even for a roller hockey player. PROD was removed without explanation. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Only link to his some of his stats.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:18, 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 merge to Twitch_Plays_Pokémon#Reception. I will do this with a simple redirect. Others are invited to edit the target article. Shii (tock) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Hopper[edit]

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

Non-notable as an independent subject (WP:NOTNEWS). Its notability is tied to Twitch Plays Pokémon as a parody. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, it should be moved to Fish Plays Pokémon (which currently redirects to Twitch (website) article). The channel might get famous, such as Twitch Plays Pokémon did. The fish won't. Mateussf (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The experiment appears to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. It remains to be seen whether it will meet the standard described in WP:EVENT. I've redirected Fish Plays Pokémon to Grayson Hopper for now, added an example of media coverage to the reception section of the article, and linked to the article from Twitch Plays Pokémon. G. C. Hood (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fish Plays Pokémon. Should be the channel, not the fish. However it does have multiple outside, third-party sources so it is notable. (Although it could be a sub-section in the Reception section of Twitch Plays Pokémon.) And lets be honest: NO one is going to search the fish name to arrive on this article, they are gonna search Fish Plays Pokémon.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:33, 8 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) 22:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (whether this article or Fish Plays Pokemon) to Twitch Plays Pokemon. It's related to the TPP aspect (which is clearly notable on its own), but a separate article this is way too much. Can be discussed in context of TPP. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Fish Plays Pokémon" and keep. The topic seems notable enough to not merge it with Twitch Plays Pokémon. [Soffredo] 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
- The concept of Fish Plays Pokémon is notable alone as it is satire of popular internet entertainment.
- The amount of viral popularity enjoyed by FPP is notable in its own respect.
- The community action involved with FPP creates a notable aspect certainly worthy of Wikipedia.
- The social experiment on the result of some aspect of random entry into a game requiring sequential strategy is an interesting concept. The argument that "this is pointless" is invalid, this is nothing less than a completely scientific experiment on the concept of entropy.

--24.62.169.101 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: He's just as deserving of a page as TwitchPlaysPokemon is, with the amount of viewers it's received. Irockz (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge*: it's clearly inspired by twitch plays pokemon and is related to it. It has received a large amount of media attention so it is notable, but it's too closely related to TPP to warrant its own article. 24.246.68.174 (talk) 22:29, 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, Go Phightins! 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fish Plays Pokemon with Twitch Plays Pokemon. I believe merging would be the best step, I disagree with deletion. Despite the novelty of the concept, FPP will be remembered as a phenomenon of internet history, and is likely to be researched in the future. Moresco has stated^[1] that the idea was inspired by Twitch Plays Pokemon.

--86.25.21.161 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Lauren Orsini (August 13, 2014). "Meet The Python Programmers Who Taught A Fish To Play Pokémon".

It's a little too soon for this discussion as the nature of the event's notability is yet to be seen. It certainly has significant coverage from a variety of independent, reliable sources (WP:N) and there has been enough written on its novelty and creators to make a sizable article, but there is also the case that this doesn't clearly meet the Wikipedia:Notability (events) criteria, particularly where the event is not covered as significantly significant from TPP. In light of all this, I recommend merge to Twitch Plays Pokémon (ideally with first a rename to "Fish Plays Pokémon") until someone makes a talk page case for it passing the "duration of coverage" part of the event notability guideline. czar ♔ 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Lacks coverage for its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fish Plays Pokémon or Twitch Plays Pokémon - FPP is gaining some momentum, but in the event that isn't notable, merging it into the TPP article would also suffice. Zappa 24 Mati 03:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twitch_Plays_Pokémon#Reception. Frmorrison (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Twitch_Plays_Pokémon#Reception or a subcategory thereof without prejudice to recreation should more independent notability be achieved.SPACKlick (talk) 14:44, 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Baretta[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY - has no Italian-language article. Has been tagged for notability for six and a half years and no one has been able to establish notability yet. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, six years was enough time to find sources but let's wait for 6 more days and the seventh day, if we are still at the same place, delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. AlanS (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 14:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominated version of this article is indeed longer than it should be and contains a considerable volume of promotional prose, mostly added by a brand new editor [7]. I note that this new editor received no advisories or warnings about our editing policies before this AfD was filed, and no notice of the AfD. [8] (I've taken care of that. [9]) Nonetheless, this is a highly notable entertainment industry charity with extensive coverage in reliable sources; for evidence, see the 740 news articles at HighBeam Research [10] and the 1,530 New York Times hits turned up by a Google search. [11] I suggest that we revert to the 16 August 2013 version of the article [12] and try again. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep This project is covered in Playbill. It is not covered well anywhere that I see, which is a shame, and in the update to the article only self-published material is cited. I think the least harm would be done by reverting it back to the version suggested above. If the article is to be developed then either information could be deleted from or added to that version. The new content does not come from sources which meet WP:RS standards. That content is bad, but deletion of the article is not the best response. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-known, major organization that raises more than 10 million dollars per year. [13] Gccwang (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Hi. Thanks so much for the input. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I really appreciate your advice! Sorry to have caused any trouble!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sibai[edit]

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

Advert from blocked spammer lacking notability. Lacks significant coverage about Sibai in independent reliable sources. Just some listings and some PR pieces on his company. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of far too many promotional articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The sources in the article can't even support notability of the company, let alone that of its founder.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. AAA3AAA (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reesa Greenberg[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She appears to have a lot of publications and some of them are highly cited. Boleyn, why don't you think she meets WP:NACADEMICS? Tchaliburton (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete She does have a lot of publications (as do most professors). But I see no evidence that she has any of the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS, of which the first three are:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. (emphasis mine)

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

Although a book that she edited is shown to be cited 195 times, that's really not a huge number in most fields (hers is museum exhibits, which is a very small field), and articles she authored don't appear to have been as widely cited. (Note: my own bibliography is longer than hers and my articles cited more often, and I am not claiming notability. That said, I am sure that praise and attention are not equitably distributed across academia.) LaMona (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I follow LaMona's analysis regarding academic impact. In addition, I could not find coverage to meet WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A h-index of 5 is too low for WP:PROF, and I see no other indications of notability. -- 101.117.59.62 (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Boleyn. I found two mentions, added them as references, but we really need more to meet the test for the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Spartaz per CSD G2, "Test page". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pizza shops in Ontario[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRUFT: I would have PRODed it but I'm sure the author would have contested the PROD, so faster to just go straight to this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Nymf (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islington Boxing Club[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing club - only primary sources Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and no indication of notability. Jakejr (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot wrong with this article. It's promotional, has no secondary sources, and lacks any reason why this club should be considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:32, 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 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key-objects[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't possibly establish something that doesn't exist, like in this case. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds legit, merge with Structured Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... if that is even notable itself. Both articles, started by the same editor, seems to be purely promotional of this patented programming paradigm. Could even probably bundle delete. (t/c) 11:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—article is here to prop up Structured Search, which isn't notable either. Both terms are sufficiently generic that I would expect to find them used across dozens of different computing disciplines, but there's no particular use that has garnered sufficient coverage in WP:RS to justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:55, 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 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Kelsall[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:Notability Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -Absolutely nothing to be found except for advertisements regarding the store and their product. Nothing to prove WP:Notability and I would think this would fall directly in the path of WP:Advertisement. The article has been there long enough that if it were notable someone surely would have expanded it and properly sourced it by now.--Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and the above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How about: http://faircloughhall.co.uk/blog/congratulations-to-harriet-kelsall-for-becoming-every-womans-woman-of-the-year/ http://www.thenextwomen.com/2012/03/14/2011-specsavers-everywoman-retail-woman-year-harriet-kelsall-founder-design-director-harr http://www.workyourway.co.uk/harriet-kelsall-award-winning-jeweller/ http://www.jewelleryfocus.co.uk/8361-harriet-kelsall-announces-winner-of-bespoke-jewellery-design-competition http://joannedewberry.co.uk/day-in-the-life-of/day-in-the-life-of-harriet-kelsall/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.120.130 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

209.49.120.130 There is only one of those articles that really speaks about what it is she does that would make her somewhat notable and the rest of them read like advertisements for her product. I strongly feel that for the length of time this article has been allowed to stay active surely there would have been more written about her as a person and designer that would sustain this article and remove it from the deletion floor. We must also understand that this article is written as a biography or as we refer to it here a WP:BLP and this article fails several of the guidelines to maintain its inclusion. So, I maintain my strong delete recommendation and who knows there may come a time where she will rise to the notability standards required for inclusion. There is nothing personal here, it is just a matter of procedure. This may also fall under WP:TOOSOON in which there may come a time when she does have more written about her she may satisfy our notability requirements.--Canyouhearmenow 11:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Canyouhearmenow's reasoning. AlanS (talk)

I've updated her profile with more information - it was very out of date. There are hundreds of articles in the UK press about Harriet Kelsall and her significant contribution to the UK jewelry industry and I've included a few as better citations. The thing is, that in reality she really is one of most significant and influential jewelry designers in the UK at the moment so she shouldn't really be deleted, it was just that her biography was not updated! --TJA135 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though I would urge the closing admin (if the consensus is 'delete') to consider moving this to draft space so it could be re-written about her company, which she founded in 1998 (a brief biog could be included). The company, Harriet kelsall Jewellery Design, is in fact the recipient of most of these accolades and recognition (for example the lead designer, not Kelsall, turned up to collect the 2011 award). Kelsall herself had a major write-up in the Financial Times, ~~but it looks like she was also a columnist at the time so they were plugging their own writers. Coverage is coverage all the same, particularly in~~ a very major newspaper. It's a close call for me - she's won a Woman of the Year award and been given the Freedom of the City of London, which not every designer can claim! Sionk (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a columnist for the Financial Times and never has been. There have been other articles in major UK newspapers (the Telegraph, Times Educational Supplement, Woman's Own Magazine and so on) but they aren't not cited as urls to them no longer seem to exist. The business is only 30 people so really Harriet Kelsall and Harriet Kelsall Jewellery Design are pretty much one and the same. Harriet Kelsall collected all her own awards apart from a UK Jewellery Award in 2013 because she was having heart surgery at the time!! The point I'm trying to make is that if you are going to include any UK jewellery designers in Wikipedia the only real measure of significance (beyond their success in selling jewellery!) is whether they've won major things like a UK Jewellery Awards (the jewellery "Oscars"), been involved in major initiatives (like the launch of Fairtrade gold) and influence the industry by sitting on industry committees like the British Jeweller's Association or the Creative and Cultural Skills Academy. --TJA135 (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. She was certainly the featured 'expert' in the "Ask the Experts" column that week, though I agree it looks like she wasn't the author of the column. Sionk (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, no matter how much we want to jockey this article I still do not believe it meets its purpose. First of all most of the information out there is about her company and her winning awards for the "Company" which would make me believe that the company should have the article and not her. Second, I feel that her or her agent is the one pushing this which would make most of the unsourced material WP:OR. if anything we need to merge this into an article about the company and not her as an individual because all the press material i can find so far speaks of nothing more than her winning this award. If she is truly notable don't you think we would find more than that? Canyouhearmenow 17:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're conceding there may be some notability here. Your "strong delete" argument made no sense when the article clearly lists a two personal awards (Woman of the Year/Freedom of the City of London) and news coverage. The COI claims seem purely speculative - there are actually people keenly interested in jewellery and fashion, you know. Sionk (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not conceding anything. I stand by my strong delete and still feel the article needs to be deleted. This is nothing personal, just simply guidelines. The sources are very sparse and limited at best. It simply talks about her winning an award. It in no way leads to notability that requires an article here on Wikipedia. Not to say that in time she would reach inclusion worthiness but at this point I personally feel that it is WP:TOOSOON--Canyouhearmenow 02:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Comment I think any suggestion of coi is specuative, but the tone of this article, plus the fact that its creator is a WP:SPA and in title it has three editors who have edited this article and no others - including [[User:TJA135, who has voted 'keep' here. It's speculative, but it's unusual and based on previous experience, suspicious.
Delete as per nom's rationale. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; the one FT piece is the only source in her favor, but its run of the mill type stuff, otherwise this is more of a linked in resume for a competent professional, not a wikipedia page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:57, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Heggedal and Blakstad School Band[edit]

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

has not yet met WP:BAND standards Asdklf; (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason for a WP article. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We rarely create stand alone articles on bands at this level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 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 merge to Irreligion in Nigeria. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Bala[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E criterion 1, Mr. Bala does not meet our notability guidelines. Perhaps a redirect to Irreligion in Nigeria would be in order, but he is not notable for his own article. Go Phightins! 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all that can be said about Mr Bala, then I'm forced to agree. If, conversely, more can be said about Mr Bala, then that content should be added to the article. DS (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or/and Redirect: I believe his story will be very useful for a larger article on minority religions (I am assuming not believing in God is also a religion) in Nigeria. Definitely not significant enough for a standalone article. There is no biggie in sending an Atheist to a rehab center in Nigeria sef. Darreg (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or/and Redirect is the best option.193.164.114.35 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the information is valid, but there isn't enough about the individual to justify a standalone article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gascoigne Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, no additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' were added to the article leaving the notability issue unresolved. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.

In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I would like nothing better than for the article to be improved and Wikipedia to benefit. If you posted sources or edited the article and made improvements then I would happily withdraw this nomination. However, you seem to argue that the article is just fine the way it is and that nothing need be changed.

While the quality of the article is not great, that is not the reason for the nomination. It does have some information. Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.

Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there? "I would like nothing better than for the article to be improved and Wikipedia to benefit" => then ask for it! PRODing/AfDing and requesting an improvement are not the same things.

Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Gascoigne Road) has been created 8.5 years ago. It had 34 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased, NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This street and the article about it seem to fail WP:GNG completely. It seems that the sole purpose of this article is to document that there is, in fact, a street in Hong Kong by this name and to document exactly where it is. That seems best left to Google Maps rather than an encyclopedia. I don't believe the purpose of WP is to document every street in the world, or even Hong Kong. I don't even know why WP has an article on List of streets and roads in Hong Kong (or any other city for that matter). Anyway, nothing in the article seems notable and I can't find any references where the street itself was notable or any notable events have ever happened on the street. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gascoigne Road flyover has been the scene for quite a number of traffic accidents, and is one of the monitor spot for traffic conditions by the Transport Department, as seen frequently in the realtime footage it provides to newcasters. If this can be used (with support of further citing) then it probably makes a case of notability. (t/c) 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep The historical sources satisfy GNG. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have substantially expanded the article, with references, since the nomination, and I believe that it is at this point decent enough to be part of Wikipedia. Additional mentions of the street are in books not online. Also, Chinese language sources have not yet been exploited. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the main roads of Kowloon, and of historic interest. This AfD is part of a mass nomination of HK streets and the nominator has seemingly made little effort to differentiate non-notable streets from the notable. Gascoigne Road certainly falls into the latter category. Thanks to those who have added content recently; I hope to do the same when I have time. Citobun (talk) 06:21, 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 redirect to Dračevo, Skopje. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajko Žinzifov Primary School - Dračevo[edit]

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

Elementary schools are not inherently notable. Per WP:NSCHOOL, significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed. This article cites none. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Dračevo, Skopje might be to be a option, but I think it is possible to keep the article, as reliable sources about the school do exist. The website of Time.mk has a list of many article referring mainly to the 2009 food poisoning in the school. This article published by 24vesti.mk is about a protest of parents near to the school, unrelated to the food poisoning incident. Here is another list of newspaper articles about the school. Search for „Рајко Жинзифов“ Драчево or ОУ „Рајко Жинзифов“ - Драчево. See also the article on Macedonian Wikipedia: mk:ОУ „Рајко Жинзифов“ - Драчево. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Macedonian wp article gives me no comfort. It has no refs at all. It does have three ELs, but even there one is to the school url itself, and it is not clear that the others are at all helpful. Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dračevo, Skopje per established consensus for non-notable primary schools under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. There is assertion in the article about it being United Kingdom-sponsored and also China-sponsored, which surely has to be unusual. I cannot evaluate the Macedonian language sources myself, but per User:Vejvančický, there is adequate coverage. Seems an unusually high profile school for a primary school, should NOT be closed per "usual" wp:schooloutcomes. Keep, unless and until there is a consensus of Macedonian-conversant editors against it. --do ncr am 04:58, 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 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. As we usually do with schools at this level, absent unusual notability as reflected in RSs. At speedy we give weight to assertions that lack RS support. But not at AfD. And we don't base our deletion results on the !vote of language-conversant editors, who speak the language of the topic -- that would be a novel addition to our AfD criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 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 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Redirect per standard procedure according to long established precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and evidenced by 1,000s of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. She has a job, is a graduate of Harvard, is on the board of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and has given a speech. None of that adds up to anything. Two of the three "sources" are the same, presumably a self-written resumé. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whoever created this page, I assume, thought this sentence was the money ticket: "In 2010, Garcia Quiroz was nominated by Barack Obama, and confirmed by the United States Senate, as chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service." But basically, she's a civil servant. If she need be mentioned at all, it should be in the article the Corporation for National and Community Service.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Lisa Garcia Quiroz is notable. She launched two businesses with Time Inc. as a founding publisher of multiple magazines, including People en Español and Time For Kids. Precedent has been set for posting Wiki articles for individuals with this credential as there are other publishers and editors with Wiki articles, including: Andrew Heiskell (People and Life magazines) and Nancy Gibbs (Time Magazine).

She is also the first Chief Diversity Officer of Time Warner Inc., a global leader in media and entertainment with businesses in television networks and filmed entertainment. Whether measured by quality, popularity or financial results, the divisions (Home Box Office, Turner Broadcasting System, and Warner Bros. Entertainment) are at the top of their categories. Precedent has been set for posting Wiki articles for individuals with this credential as other Executive Vice Presidents and Chief Diversity Officers have Wiki articles, including David L. Cohen (Comcast), Mark Lloyd (Federal Communications Commission), and Moises Salinas (Central Connecticut State University). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timewarnercsr (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Timewarnercsr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable business executive. Won awards. Numerous WP:RS with in-depth nontrivial coverage easily meets the WP:GNG with [this source and this source, many others (see Wikipedia article on her). That Obama nominated her for a prestigious committee is icing on the cake. Successful media executive with launches of successful magazines.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear that SPA edits automatically trigger the notice about WP:CANVASsing. If true, this poisons the well, violates WP:DONTBITE, if not WP:AGF, and is ad hominem, as is shown by Timewarnercsr's argument, which although it suffers from the same drawbacks as all OTHERSTUFF arguments, is obviously carefully considered and not a WP:VOTE in the slightest. Anarchangel (talk) 02:12, 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 03:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:34, 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 03:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep It looks like enough reliable sources have been added since it was nominated to establish notability WP:GNG. I added one from a HighBeam search. I am One of Many (talk) 06:56, 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 keep. Deor (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Conroy (mayor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Very little written about him. A line or two that he was the mayor and built a hotel. No "significant press coverage". Magnolia677 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Person has been designated as important in the history of his community by Quebec [14]. Technical issues: Person would have been widely covered in the news of his time but would not appear in Google News (current) since it contains only the most recent years and "Google News Archive" is not well indexed by Google any more.(see article Google News Archive). Printed book coverage for Canadian sources from that era is not very well covered by the web. Also, although many of the major figures of that era were British, much of the historical web material is in French, so if you ignore French, there isn't much left on the web. --Big_iron (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC) There are more than a few lines in the listed reference here:[15]--Big_iron (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be notable enough, and I think Aylmer is large enough to warrant its mayors having articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even in its current form as a borough of Gatineau, Aylmer had a population of just 41,000 in 2006 — meaning that as a standalone municipality prior to the 2002 amalgamation it wasn't large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors. That said, I'd be comfortable keeping this if it actually cited enough sourcing to get him past WP:GNG, but in this form it passes neither GNG nor WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody devotes some time to digging out archival sourcing (language isn't an issue, as French-language sources are allowed), but the quality of sourcing and the basic claim of notability as a small town mayor are not good enough to entitle him to keep an article just because better sourcing might be possible to track down, if the better sourcing isn't already in it. ~~Delete~~ Update: Due to significant sourcing improvements that have taken place since my original comment, I'm now down with the keep in this case. I still stand by my assessment that the quality of the original sourcing, as it existed at the time of my comment, wasn't good enough — and it didn't actually make any assertion at the time that he was actually "significant" or "nationally recognized" for his lumber business, but merely asserted that he had a lumber business and went into almost no further detail than that. But it's significantly better now. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, the topic passes WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources where? Six of the seven sources cited here are blurbs (not substantial), blogs (not reliable) or maps of the island (not coverage of him), leaving only one source that even begins to count toward BASIC at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any room for misrepresentation in this type of discussion. The one item that might possibly be construed as a blog has been fairly well sourced. The item which includes a "map of the island" also includes text (in French though) which does discuss Conroy and his family briefly and was included to document a point in the article. The so-called "blurb" entries from the provincial archives indicate that there has been substantive material collected and maintained and do speak to the notability of the subject. --Big_iron (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Biographic articles are usually more substantial than news stories. In my own view, a local mayor with ten news stories in local newspapers may not qualify as a notable person, while the one with several independent biographic articles may. And the reason is obvious: If he hadn't appeared in newspapers for several times, who would write biographies for him? Even if local historians want to, they must have enough material, most of which comes from news stories. WP:NRVE says "if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." I think this is the case.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:14, 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 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -proven to have reliable sources and he is enough of a notable political figure to get him past WP:GNG--Canyouhearmenow 12:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Short article is no deletion argument. And mayors should always be notable.[reply]

Mayors can be notable, absolutely — but for a variety of reasons (town is too small, post is purely ceremonial and not executive, etc.) they aren't and cannot be entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. The sources provided do not appear to be substantial about the subject, and those would fail to meet WP:GNG. We have not usually presumed the "automatic" notability of mayors for the reason Bearcat suggests (city/town is too small, post is purely ceremonial and not executive, etc.). Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be some fixation on the small town mayor issue, which is certainly not the subject's only claim to fame. As per sources listed, he was considered a prominent figure in his field at the national and regional levels. --Big_iron (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I originally commented, the article as written contained no assertion of his prominence as a lumberman — it merely asserted that he was a smalltown mayor and lumberman, but offered no significant evidence of how he was notable for either thing. You've significantly improved the content and sourcing, so thanks for that, and I've now withdrawn my original vote — but at the time I originally commented, the "small town mayor issue" was the only substantive claim of notability that was present in the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 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 redirect to State of the Future. I am going to close this "redirect" even though no one called for that. The only cited claim on the page is that they are publishers of this report and the references all discuss the reports, not the organisation. I find that the arguments of the keep camp are all some variety of claims of inherited notability, either by virtue of the parent organisation, or of the child reports. This kind of notability has no basis in policy whereas the delete camp's case of insufficient sourcing certainly does. Our usual method of dealing with inherited notability is to redirect, so I feel that this is a legitimate close. There is no pressing need to have the history deleted and retaining it will facilitate resurrecting the article should someone find decent sources in the future. SpinningSpark 12:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Millennium Project[edit]

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

No indication of notability, tagged since February 2013. Part of a walled garden, including Jerome C. Glenn (deleted after AFD) and State of the Future. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references in the article are from the subject itself. Research suggests that only its own site references itself. No notability. --Rpclod (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was previously kept at WP:VFD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project. GB fan 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That is actually two separate Keeps, GB, it was Kept at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Millennium Project and Kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Project.~~ It was also Proposed for Deletion and Kept on July 30, 2014. Anarchangel (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) My bad, Votes is the old name, so I thought it was an older process, but it is just a redirect. Anarchangel (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability hasn't changed since last AfD. Still needs citations, but I've found it referenced on UNESCO's site, and added a reference to an article about one of their reports. XeroxKleenex (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last AfD (at that time still called VfD) was over 9 years ago. Our inclusion criteria have changed significantly since then. Please note that the article was bad enough already, but was edited extensively by an IP yesterday and now actually really falls under CSD G11... I'm not going to revert all that, but will let the AfD run its course first. BTW, I don't see any reference to a UNESCO site. (But if it exists, it probably concerns the UN task force of the same name (see below). --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (strike) The organization has many mentions in third party independent books see "The Millennium Project" (past the first page of results). -- GreenC 04:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have the impression that there are two entities of this name. One is this one, "an independent think thank". The books make reference to a "task force commissioned by the UN secretary-general". Given the promotional efforts of IPs, if this Millennium Project had such an origin, it most certainly would be mentioned in the article. Instead, there's some vague references to indirect contacts of the founder with the UN University and such. In addition, several of the book hits that you link to above are reports by the (UN) Millennium Project, but again, not even the current promotional version of the article claims these publications. So whereas the UN task force may have some notability, this one doesn't. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't initially sure it was the same org. Then saw both had UN connections so figured it must be. But agree it's probably not. -- GreenC 14:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 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 03:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]

Would you perhaps care to expand on the reasoning behind your cryptic !vote? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is affiliated with the State of the Future report which (imo) is notable, although I am interested in Randykitty's take that there are two separate organizations, so I may switch this vote depending on what I learn. Right now I won't be able to do much for the next few days.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not seen any evidence that SotF is notable, except in the eyes of the Millennium Project itself. If you read their homepage, you will see that they carefully avoid saying that they are affiliated with the UN (which, as a Google Books search shows, did have a similar named "task force" years ago). They repeat that on their about page, where they finally clearly state that they are an "independent think tank". As their tax return shows, whereas they "estimate" to have 150 volunteers, they employ only 4 persons. For an organization claiming to have 50 "nodes" worldwide, total revenue of $255,390 and total expenses of $277,913, with total assets below $20k, their budget is decidedly on the modest side (to use an understatement)... --Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Generally agree with Randykitty's analysis; seems like there are two organizations; this Millennium Project is a spin-off from the UN a while back but is not associated with them, rather it is really a nonprofit consultancy. There is also a residential development in California called the Millennium Project, as well as other names coming up "Millennium Project" (popular name apparently). There was MUCH CRUFT in a previous draft of the article, unsourced content clearly promotional, which I have (hopefully) removed entirely. So, what do we have left? About six sources covering its State of the Future report, which like it or not, is described as "authoritative" and which has a major impact, regardless of the size of the organization (4 employees), budget of $250K/year. The sources do not talk much about the organization itself, but rather the focus is on the annual report and what it says. So, at this point, my best guess would be to combine the State of the Future article with this stubbified content of The Millennium Project into one article -- and that would be notable. Having two separate articles I think is overkill.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references are the organization itself, not enough coverage. Frmorrison (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lots of self-referential sources but nothing that is independent or substantial enough to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am struggling with this one because I can't ever tell if I'm looking at the same Milennium Project. I think this is about the same one. If so it was named 6th best think tank that would be notable although I can't verify that claim. It's a tough one.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney's Lady and the Tramp characters[edit]

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

Almost all original interpretation and in-universe style. Little or no real-world connections, and those that are present are uncited. McDoob AU93 13:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I can vote (can IPs vote?), but if I can I say keep but with improvements. This article has pretty much every character in the first film and most of the characters from the sequel, but it still lacks sources. Some of the OR parts wouldn't seem like OR if they had sources or were reworded to a more neutral tone. By now this article seems to have a lot of notability (just look at all the information available), but it still needs help. This article and the article about the first film have been the target of vandalism by a disruptive user for the past three months, but hopefully that user will be blocked. If you look in the history of this article you will see it started out pretty pathetic but got much better. At the very least can it at least just redirect to the original Lady and the Tramp article without being deleted? People might search for this, I mean other Disney movies have character articles, like The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast, and of course, The Lion King. 69.174.87.44 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a case of WP:UNDUE to treat characters from a 2001 direct-to-DVD "sequel" as if they are on common footing with the widely-seen (and regularly rereleased) 1955 theatrical film. Original characters should be described in the parent film article (which I see lacks such descriptions at present), with the DVD article merely noting which ones appear from the original film and describing new characters unique to the DVD. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a description of the characters from the sequel at Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure#Cast, perhaps just remove the Junkyard Dogs section and merge it there? Most of the characters in this article are relevant to the original film (some of these characters didn't even appear in the second film and others had smaller roles). If this article cannot be kept the idea of a redirect is logical, as any noteworthy information not already present in the two articles about the two animated films can be merged. A similar debate is currently going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcast of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. 64.134.27.24 (talk) 00:42, 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 03:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article seems to restate only plot points throughout. Would be much better if redirected instead. NewJibaJabba (talk) 04:29, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bazar Bheema[edit]

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

In its current state, this Indian film related article totally fails WP:NFILM. A single source is their which is not a reliable one. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:N. I don't know what made @Vaidyasr: to create several similar article while giving support of unreliable reference wordpress. See his some recent contributions Janumadatha, Hongkongnalli Agent Amar, Indina Bharatha, Asambhava, Athiratha Maharatha, and so on.... There is no doubt he have made several good contributions on WP. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Bazar Bheema Perala Y V Rao M Balaiah

As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @MichaelQSchmidt: the links that you have given above does not have any significant coverage or have 0 coverage in the article. CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not about SIGCOV, but for sourcability away from wordpress. Its problematic to not allow a creator time to improve an article. Being at the minimum at least sourcable, WP:ATD allows options that might allow that improvement, even were sources to not be in English. And if unimproved, deletion is always a option, it just should not always be someone's first and only choice for weak articles, if issues might be addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above links still lacks significant coverage or have 0 coverage. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found searching on either the English or Kannada title. The Kannada Wikipedia article is considerably worse than this one, unlikely as that may seem. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media in Durango, Colorado[edit]

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

I don't think this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 02:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Durango is the main locus of media in southwestern Colorado, and media outlets based there reach tens of thousands people in the surrounding area. Most of the outlets based there already have Wikipedia pages of their own. The purpose of this article is to aggregate that information together and provide a link to a the city's main article page. Creating lists such as these is standard practice for U.S. cities and has been for years. See [Category:Lists of media by city in the United States].

Information on these media outlets is available from independent and reliable secondary sources including the FCC, the Library of Congress, Arbitron, Nielsen, and multiple independent websites, satisfying the significant coverage clause of the notability guideline. FUBAR007 (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This information (or most of it, anyway) is encyclopedic and belongs either here or in a section of the main Durango, Colorado article. Merger could be discussed but at first blush this looks like it's long enough to justify a spinout article in any case. In any event, deletion is not appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Some improved sourcing would certainly be welcome, but cities are always entitled to have a "media" subsection in their main article and/or a standalone "Media in City" list if there's enough content to warrant one. If the entire list consisted of only one or two media outlets, then I'd support deletion — but as it stands, this content is completely legitimate, so complete deletion is not an option and the only legitimate question is whether it should be a standalone list or merged and redirected into a subsection of the city's main article. And since Durango is the main center for a regional media market, there is enough content here to justify the list. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Howell[edit]

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

The article text is copied from http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/Emily-howell.htm Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done some work to lose the copyvio and there are ample sources attesting to the notability of the program. I think someone with knowledge, which I don't have, could turn this into a good, strong article. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Oh, come ON. I go to Wikipedia to learn about things I have no clue about otherwise. I heard a passing reference to "Emily Howell", that it was a bot that composed music, and the music I was listening to was indistinguishable (to me) from a human composer of background music. I vote it stays as is, until someone is willing to take the time to create better material. But don't delete at least a solid, basic reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.255.175 (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Keep - Article no longer directly copies the source referenced in the copy vio, and new version adds value. Emily Howell just get referenced in a viral youtube that has nearly 2 million hits [see youtube Humans Need Not Apply] which led me here. Notable and and in better shape. Keep. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The copyright issue has been dealt with and there seem to be no doubts about notability. --Deskford (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really. There are no real copyright issues left here. It's an very interesting (but short) article --Slayer087 (talk) 07:49, 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) 06:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Wamsley[edit]

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

resume not enough to pass notability here. recurring character not mentioned in main article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Internet search shows no indication of notability other than what is in the article, and indeed no mentions at all other than this article, tv databases, social media, a mention in a list in a book named "Who Was Who on TV", and a mention in a book on The Hughleys. Well, and this, which can easily be taken as him actually mocking how not notable he is. Revent^talk 04:36, 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, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bit actor who has failed to garner significant coverage. No particular claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 14:06, 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 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Sharf[edit]

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

While the subject appears to be an accomplished individual with some significant involvement in the area of cognitive testing in employment, the article's only sources are an editorial on which he was one of several dozen co-signers, and what looks to be promotional material provided by his own firm. So, I looked around, and while there is some mention of the him on the web, there's not much. The "notable award" mentioned in the info box is legitimate, but not notable enough to warrant an article either. The article is basically promotional and non-encyclopedic.

Additionally, it looks like there is a significant conflict of interest issue in terms of one of the editors of this article. Holdek (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Appears totally unsourced and promotional, and the chap is not properly notable enough. There also appears to be a COI editor involved, not that that is a reason for deletion on its own, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Starting with his race norming work with the EEOC, Sharf has been a notable contributor to industrial-organizational psychology. Has three fellow designations (APA, APS, SIOP); that's usually enough for a keep via WP:PROF#C3. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that he's an APA fellow. He's a fellow of the other two, but, for example, APS has over 2,400 currently, so I don't think that qualifies as "highly selective." Holdek (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Weak delete, though he is an elected Fellow of several societies, they do not appear to be highly selective in the numbers they promote to these positions, therefore don't count towards meeting WP:NACADEMICS notability criteria. Being one of 52 signatories of a 1994 editorial doesn't seem to amount to much either. Article currently lacks proof of major importance, though Sharf's longevity and minor recognition suggests I could be proved wrong. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just being a competent professional is not grounds for notability. Two keep !votes do not show that subject meets WP:GNG, which it appears they do not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 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. Michig (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ningbo Twin Towers[edit]

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

Abandoned project that doesn't seem to have ever been notable. Except the brief skyscraperpage.com data all google hits are blogs mirroring of this Wiki stub. ELEKHH^T 01:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 01:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 01:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination--111.75.251.34 (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable building lacking the requisite significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As of 2010, the status was still proposed. If it ever gets built and sources write about the building, then is the time to create an article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per description by ELEKHH and comment by Philg88, this doesn't seem to merit entry unless and until it comes off the drawing board and gets some coverage. Libby norman (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robotech vehicles[edit]

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

This article is almost exclusively in universe descriptions of fictional vehicles and as such is unencyclopedic. All of the references are from Robotech franchise products rather than outside sources which does little to establish the notability of this fictional topic. Things like this are much better handled on separate wikis like this one [16]. --Daniel (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Daniel (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree. Robotech one of the first adaptations of Japanese animation to a Western Audience. Wikipedia has a wide variety of articles covering the Robotech Universe (see Template:Robotech). That more than proves this topic is certainly notable. In addition, given the list of references at the bottom of the, I fail to see why this is not properly sourced. A lot of editors (myself included) have put a lot of work into this article, which has taken almost six years to develop. It's true that some portions of this page could be shortened (or even removed), but deleting the entire article outright seems like overkill.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

How do a wide variety of articles on other topics (some that should also be deleted) prove this article to be notable? Robotech's notability as a widely known animation is not inherited by its fictional content. The question is, have multiple reliable sources, outside of Robotech media, discussed these fictional vehicles in any depth? A long list of "references" does not always add up to notability. The references used in this article are exclusively of two types, references to Robotech media itself (which do not establish notability) and fan speculation (which has no place whatsoever in a real encyclopedia). The thing is, the work yourself and others have put into this article does not need to be lost. This content could easily be moved to the Robotech wiki that I linked to without losing anything. --Daniel (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of Robotech's importance or notability. It's a question of the individual article in question. Character lists are generally accepted as spin out articles for various reasons, plus a well done character list will include critical reception of one or more characters. Vehicles and equipment lists tend to be considered unsuitable for Wikipedia articles due to their minimal scope - they generally aren't discussed by reliable third party sources and aren't likely to be of interest to the general user. The fan speculation has no place here and the other references tell us things but not what those things are important. The nomination is correct in saying there are more suited places to put this kind of information than Wikipedia. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and looks like a lot of cleanup is necessary here. A quick look at the character articles show the same kind of in-universe/walled garden issue, these need trimmed well down. This type of in-universe content without independent referencing and analysis works for a Wikia, but isn't appropriate here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Delete as not notable; WP:GNG not met. Note that as none of the editors whom !voted "keep" has given any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping the article, their arguments should not be given significant weight; and as User:Seraphimblade has said, many other Robotech articles also suffer from the same problem of unproven notability and lack of adequate sourcing. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN, I know there are fans of this show but we are not wikia. My suggestion is for anyone who wants to keep these things to transfer the information over to the wikia fansite as sadly the sources are just not here to establish notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary detail. Second Kid's suggestion of transwiki. --erachima talk 08:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it only looks like there are lots of sources. There actually aren't. You can see that most of the inline citations actually go to the series' official website or to the fictional series itself, thus are no good for establishing notability. Others are just blatant original research. "These are only the estimates of the fans." Give me a break. Reyk _YO! 03:58, 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. Michig (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO. All the sources are his own books, except for a dead link. Board member of an institution which is barely notable. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 00:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless independent sources are found during the discussion. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and conducting a search on the subject only yields their publications. No coverage of the subject which is independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG AlanS (talk) 06:03, 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.

[readwrite-1] Lauren Orsini (August 13, 2014). "Meet The Python Programmers Who Taught A Fish To Play Pokémon".

[1]