Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 August	22 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 no consensus. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sackler Center for Arts Education[edit]

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

Welcome to the deletion discussion for Sackler Center for Arts Education. All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. -- This was added by User:Amrit.ghimire13 (talk) on 16 August 2014

Hi there, I'm wondering what could make this article stronger for it to exist on its own, or whether or not Wikipedians would favor absorbing this into the main Solomon R Guggenheim Museum article. I'm working with our archivists here at the Museum to find more news articles and resources that detail the Sackler Center's construction and opening in 2001. I'd be happy and grateful to hear what others think. -- Prpldv06 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No reason for deletion is given by the nominator, but as the article stands now, I think the content would be better served by merging it into the museum's article, to the extent that it is not already there. There does not seem to be much unique information here. A redirect can be left in its place. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD discussion page and article. Ansh666 23:04, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Andrew (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK is not applicable here owing to a !vote in favor of a merge redirect backed by a cogent argument. But yeah this AfD is a mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not deletion. The nominator seems to be a new editor; the nomination is incoherent and almost certainly hasn't followed WP:BEFORE as I find it quite easy to find sources which discuss the topic in detail. The subject is a respectable institution which should not have to suffer the derogatory assertion that it should be deleted by someone who does not appear to have much clue. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nominator may well be knew, but we have a cogent argument and !vote for a merge and redirect. I think that satisfies the spirit of the law. No need to preempt discussion. If the article deserves to be kept, I'm sure it will be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:SK, we require a reason to delete for a deletion discussion. Non-deletion actions "such as moving or merging" are inadequate. Andrew (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually very little is required on Wikipedia. WP:SK is a guideline, not canon law. Like all guidelines it is subject to both community consensus and WP:COMMONSENSE. And for the record, although I am still searching online for sources, as of right now I am leaning rather strongly towards a Delete !vote. The cited sources do not meet the standards normally applied by the community and I am having a lot of trouble finding something that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Only one of the cited sources meets WP:RS, the other being affiliated. And the one RS source only mentions the subject in passing. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell, which I did find rather surprising as these sorts of orgs usually garner enough attention to pass GNG. I did however find quite a bit in reference to an identically named organization affiliated with the Victoria and Albert Museum in Great Britain. I remain open to reconsideration if better sources are found but as of right now, I don't see enough here to bother with a merge.-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should have been an immediate Speedy close. Nominations like this (let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks) should be strongly discouraged. In any case, this 'stub' is only a month old and should instead be marked as 'needs references' and 'expansion'. At the worst, it should be merged with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: I'm with VMS -- regardless of the pile-on, if the nominator doesn't proffer a reason to delete, an article should not be at AfD. Ravenswing 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fine. If it will satisfy our legalistic impulses I will not object to a procedural close to the AfD. I will however, immediately renominate the article based on my observations above. It appears that common sense is out to lunch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of renominating, I suggest starting a merge discussion, which I would support, and then we can merge any useful info into the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum article, while leaving behind a simple redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will counter with the suggestion that we just boldly merge and redirect the article now, and save everyone a lot of trouble. As far as I can tell no one has suggested here or elsewhere that the article passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Solomon R Guggenheim Museum. It seems almost everything that could be said about the 'Center' is in the article, it would not be disproportional to include it as a short section in the very lengthy Museum article. I can't find any other sources (apart from a medium length Dance Teacher article accessible via Highbeam) and everything I've read suggests it is an integral part of the larger Museum. Sionk (talk) 15:24, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optyn[edit]

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

An email marketing software. The two very brief news mentions are about the parent company. Remainder cited to Crunchbase profile and Google Chrome page. I can't see any reliable news coverage about the software. Sionk (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Company doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, software doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Refs are social media or brief mentions, and not significant coverage. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 01:10, 27 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 McCarthy Trenching. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 09:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy Trenching (album)[edit]

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

As the band was deleted by PROD this seems unnecessary. (I know I may have not done this right, I haven't AfD'd anything for awhile and procedures change)--T. Anthony (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Redirect to McCarthy Trenching per below.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McCarthy Trenching. I found enough coverage to show that the band as a whole would pass notability guidelines, although I do think that the coverage is a bit too light for the albums to have their own separate article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 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 McCarthy Trenching. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calamity Drenching[edit]

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

As the band was deleted by PROD this seems unnecessary. (I know I may have not done this right, I haven't AfD'd anything for awhile and procedures change)--T. Anthony (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Redirect to McCarthy Trenching per below.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The PROD may have been a little hasty. I found this article about the band and AllMusic has two reviews for their work. I'm going to transfer a copy of the PRODed article into my userspace, as I have a feeling that the band might actually pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to McCarthy Trenching. I did a little digging and sure enough, there's more than enough coverage to warrant the band having an article. That said, I don't think that there's enough coverage to warrant an article for the albums, so this would be best served as a redirect to the band's article. (Which I've restored due to the coverage.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I did wonder a little. On the CfD for Category:McCarthy Trenching albums I had a slight caveat at the end saying "Although I suppose it might be possible that the band is notable and the deletion could be reviewed."--T. Anthony (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lusocoin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable concurrency (appears to be yet another unremarkable fork of Bitcoin). Salimfadhley (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for coverage and found very little. There are websites associated with the creators of Lusocoin, cryptocurrency forums, and domain name analyses; but none of these are reliable, independent sources. As of now, the article fails WP:GNG, though this could change if the cryptocurrency suddenly gains more coverage. Altamel (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agree WP:TOOSOON. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not nearly enough coverage to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. For what it's worth, the page Cryptocurrency states that there were more than 275 cryptocurrencies as of May 2014 but only lists 14 of the most notable ones; when this gets coverage similar to those, I think that would be a fair time to create a page for this, but for now it lacks appropriate coverage. Upjav (talk) 18:56, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shusha massacre[edit]

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

I nominate this article for deletion due this article includes only armenian side of the claimed event, which is direct breach of WP:NPOV. Most of the sources for the article is just out of the context on Azerbaijani people and not-historical proven facts, which is breach of WP:BIAS. Moreover, the article is full of copy-paste material for an encyclopedic entry. The article uses fake sources such as "Audrey L. Altstadt. Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule", which is not related anyhow to the massacre. I think this is more than enough information. No other country except armenians are writing about this so called event. Yacatisma (talk) 20:34, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep AFD is not for solving possible POV issues. Besides, this article has plenty of non-Armenian sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep All the reasons given are reasons to edit the article not reasons to delete it. GB fan 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's sources are trivial mentions and closely connected source of dubious reliability. Unless someone can identify some neutral sources, it seems that the subject fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janavar (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to explain exactly how this book is not a neutral source? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains non-Armenian sources as well. If we were to delete this article then we should delete Guba mass grave, Capture of Garadaghly, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, etc. as well as all of those articles only contain Azerbaijani sources and, as Yacatisma stated above, "No other country except azerbaijanis are writing about this so called event." Ninetoyadome (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and Wikipedia:Essays. Totally arbitrary collection of opinions, mainly about armenian genocide, which, of course, already has its own article. Some of it appears to be about the definition of genocide, which is covered in the armenian genocide article, to which the title could be redirected.--Torpaq (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone can read the article and see that it is more than an "arbitrary collection of opinions." It's sourced from a variety of academic sources from scholars from various uninvolved nations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SOFIXIT seems to apply here. POV issues are solved by editing the article to provide a balanced view, not by deleting the whole thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Before voting, commenting, or responding, please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NovaSkola. The nominator of this AfD and the vote-stackers voting delete are under serious suspicion of SPI. The master sockpuppet, NovaSkola (talk · contribs), has been banned indefinitely from editing articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan due to his/her disruption in Armenian related articles. So, welcome to WP:AA2 fellas!!! Also, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @GaryColemanFan:, @GB fan:, I hope you got this message. Cheers! Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you shouldn't trust Étienne Dolet's false claims as arbitary collection didn't made the decision. He is clearly accusing me of somebody that I'm not related.--Torpaq (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable event that is well documented by acceptable sources. I'd suggest a name change though - perhaps to Shusha Pogrom. AfD proposer needs to understand that alleging an article is one-sided is not a valid reason for deleting that article (and claiming one-sidedness while also claiming "no other country except armenians are writing about this so called event" is displaying a high level of doublethink). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The suggestion to delete the article smacks of a bad-faith attack and should be investigated. Hablabar (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Quite aside from the perfectly valid comments above, and with a (threadbare) assumption that this is in good faith, the nom makes a common error regarding WP:NPOV -- that Wikipedia's never permitted to say anything naughty about any person or group which objects to the characterization. This is a critical misreading of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We are under no compunction, in light of such a heavily-documented and sourced event, to spare the feelings of the perps. Ravenswing 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junichi Fujisaku[edit]

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

Essentially an unref blp (has an external link, but no actual reference). Has been like this for several years. It has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Its last AfD, in 2008, reached no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alas, I see the same fuzzy "Seems notable" rationales in the last AfD that have plagued Wikipedia for years. It's an unreferenced BLP of a non-notable person. Period. Ravenswing 19:52, 22 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) 02:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N/WP:BIO and WP:V. I am unable to find any reliable, third-party published sources that aren't lists or trivial details. We need multiple substantial sources to meet notability requirements. Also, notability is not inherited. Woodroar (talk) 02:50, 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. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I could not establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I've added several citations, and will point out that the original paper has been cited 42 times. ~~That said, this is probably going to fail notability due to lack of secondary sources.~~ Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I've added a background section and several more sources; I think this now justifies a keep, and have !voted as such below. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 42 citations. James500 (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The algorithm was presented at a very high-profile government-sponsored workshop, and attracted significant attention in the crypto community (as evidenced by the number of teams that worked on breaking the algorithm, and the fact that the algorithm was included in a standard crypto library). I can appreciate a delete argument that says only those algorithms that make it into textbooks should have articles, but given the totality of the circumstances here, I think we have enough in the way of (albeit WP:PRIMARY) WP:RS to make a solid article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar gets "about 243" hits for the subject, most of them published research articles, with 14 of them having the subject in their title (not counting one false hit) and by several disjoint groups of authors. That's well above threshold for a piece of academic research for me, and meets the WP:GNG standard of having multiple independent in-depth reliably-published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thank you for your hard work, and for finding so much and proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 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 Keep. Article has been improved to show notability, nominator has withdrawn, and there are no delete opinions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Impact[edit]

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

~~Straight-to-DVD movie with no indication of notability.~~ I found a single review in a low-profile publication, there are a couple of interviews with the director, and that's all. The article itself is a mess, overly detailed, convoluted plot summary and little else, and even that "little else" manages to contain errors. Even if the film were notable, WP:TNT would be an improvement. Huon (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, and a hearty thanks for Tokyogirl79. That was an impressive effort. I dare say, though, that rewriting it from scratch wouldn't have been that much more of an effort - and the parts remaining from the original are suspect. Huon (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three reviews by reliable publications exist. DVD Verdict: [1] Two DVD Talks: [2] [3]. There is also a brief review here. According to IMDb the Mansfield News Journal also reviewed it, but their link is dead and I can't find any archives. In any case, this movie seems to pass WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also fully disagree with TNTing it. There's nothing here outrageously terrible that a good copyedit couldn't fix. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 theatrical release:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2010 DVD release(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Working title 1::(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Working title 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

and Non-English sources

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

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

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

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

Keep per multiple available sources... lots available and some now added which show the topic as meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Issues with tone or style call for editorial attention as has been done, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and TNT. This is a notable film that requires a shorter, concise plot summary and more "out-of-universe" treatment. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 03:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Huon: Perhaps you would like to build a new version in a sandbox and offer it here for consideration? The essay TNT itself suggests starting over as an option only when something is "so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." As issues have begun being addressed, and in appreciating Paine Ellsworth's contradictory "keep and TNT", just how is it you feel this "so hopelessly irreparable"? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Struck as rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the article considerably and the plot section is about half the size it was, which makes it manageable enough for a plot section. I've also moved the reviews down to their own section, so that should be fleshed out as well. At this point there isn't any reason to delete the article, as the biggest issues (notability and plot section) have been dealt with. There is a section (production) that is unsourced, but that should be easy enough to find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79: This is a SUPERB bit of editorial attention. Reducing the plot summary without detracting what informs the reader is exactly what this article required. Perhaps the nominator might acknowledge his concerns as addressed and withdraw his nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable film based on the sources found. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin F. Johnson[edit]

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

Johnson was a high school soccer coach. The sources tend towards local sources or directory listings. No demonstration that he meets any notability criteriaJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One reference does not respond. The other I had to find in the Wayback Machine. That one is not enough to establish notability. I couldn't find any other references, but if they exist they would likely be in local newspapers that cover high school sports. LaMona (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a WP:BLP1E case. – Michael (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable high school soccer coach. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability per WP:GNG. Sources appear to be routine coverage (stats, etc.) and local news reports. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "National Coach cof the Year" honor from a notable organization is at least an indication of notability. And what one event makes WP:BLP1E relevant to this article? - Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't managed a team in a Fully Professional League, he has only managed school teams. I'm not sure if the "National Coach of the Year" honour justifies a stand alone article as the rest of the content isn't notable. IJA (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IJA, in writing our NSPORTS specific notability guidelines, we have intentionally made it difficult for high school athletes and coaches to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles because, by their nature, high school sports reputations tend to be short-term and very local in nature, while allowing for the occasional phenomenon to qualify under our general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. In this case, if you follow the links, you will see that the "Coach of the Year" award was specifically for high school soccer/association football and was awarded by an association of high school coaches for all sports, not just soccer/football. The award was one of about 20 COYs awarded in different sports by the same group in the same year. Notwithstanding the COY terminology, such awards tend to be lifetime achievement awards in American high school sports because we do not have sanctioned national championships for high school teams, only state-level championships. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Has only managed school teams. Unconvinced that one national award is sufficient for notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 27 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 16:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 124[edit]

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

Unreferenced article: can find nothing to confirm that this unit even exists, let alone is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems pretty made up to me. There are no references and can't find anything to even verify this exists. Possible hoax. - Pmedema (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: A7, no assertion of notability. Ravenswing 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cesar Badillo[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article long flagged for notability; the single 3rd party source, a 2009 piece in El Universo, provides basic verification, but nothing to indicate more than a man going about his work. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up nothing better. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:00, 29 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 16:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania Institute of Technological Sciences[edit]

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

Can't determine notability, I can't find reliable sources. Of the two links that work, one provides metrics for the University of Dar es salaam. The other provides a list of institutions, but not TITS. Fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am forming an impression that this is either a very poorly publicized (at least in English sources) new initiative or a hoax. While the article claims an affiliation with the University of Dar Es Salaam, the university's website has no mention of it that I can find: [4]. The university also already has an established (2001) college of engineering (CoET): [5]. There exists also an unaffiliated Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology (DIT), but its description does not match this article: [6]. The motto of the school is said to be "For a brighter Tanzania" which is certainly plausible, but it is also a truncated version of the slogan for a rural electrification campaign: "Paving the way for a brighter Tanzania". [7]. It would be extremely helpful if we could check Swahili sources before drawing any firm conclusions. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Let me add that the article creator used a "New York City Subway station service icon" as the infobox image: File:NYCS-SSI-allexceptnights.svg. Definitely leaning toward hoax. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per my above reasoning and the suspicious alteration of numbers by the WP:SPA: diff 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any conclusive indication of its existence. To declare it as a hoax may be insulting to the creator, but it could be a degree mill or any other instition of questionanble notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 28 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) 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Dutta[edit]

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

I don't think the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and this article reads as indiscriminate publicity and the subject is most notable for a News event. I recognise that this article existed before that event but I still don't see that it meets the notability criteria. Jamie Kitson (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dutta is not notable and the page is mostly just a list of his writing which looks more like a personal homepage or an advertisement for him. Datavortex (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dutta has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources satisfying WP:BASIC that predate the current wall-to-wall coverage. See, e.g., LAPD's anti-death penalty writer, LAPD Officer: Dorner Case Proves It's Time For Police To Stop Investigating Police and Dutta Brings Writing Prowess to Homeland Security. Combine that with the worldwide current coverage Indian-American cop defends use of lethal force. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be "significant coverage", as specified by WP:BASIC. laobserved.com and laist.com seem to be local blogs which don't even have their own wikipedia entries and the chds.us entry seems to be from the university he went to. Jamie Kitson (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Dutta wrote is probably newsworthy, but not notable, but Dutta is not even newsworthy. This is temporary notoriety, not notability. WP:109PAPERS. A year from now, no one will recognize his name. This is his 15 minutes of fame; see WP:15MOF. TJRC (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. We do not cover every and all editorials people write on an issue. Dutta outraged some people, but he is not notable. If he continues to write editorials that generate a lot of response things may change, but as of now he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not NotablePreetikapoor0 (talk) 01:51, 27 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 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe Tigers Youth FC[edit]

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

Youth football team in a non professional youth league. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth/school team, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 06:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youth football teams/leagues not affiliated with professional clubs are generally not notable, and there is no evidence that this one is any different - Google just brings up the club's website, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Also, as a Latin graduate I feel the need to point out that their motto is grammatically incorrect..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Sunday league team. IJA (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable local team, fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Henderson (doctor)[edit]

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

All references in the article are from the websites of the organizations affiliated with Henderson. I tried to search and find additional references, and I failed to find anything useful. In the end of the day, we have someone who has published a book on motor racing safety, who is doing applied research related to safety, but who apparently does not publish and therefore fails WP:PROF. One of the references says he was a competitive racer in the 1960s, and he might be notable as a racer, but I did not find any confirmations of notability here either. Note that there is a professor of medicine (a surgeon) at the University of Melbourne who may very well be notable but who does not seem to be the same person. Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added some sourced material. This guy has done some cool things, but I am unsure whether or not this constitutes significant coverage in independent sources. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. For me it is now the borderline, but I am a bit hesitant to withdraw the nomination. Let us see may be others will say smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable British/Australian motor vehicle and traffic safety expert and published author. His early and significant involvement in automobile safety issues has had a lasting impact on the design of racing and passenger cars, including seat belt design and the enactment of mandatory seat belt laws in Australia, the United States and elsewhere, and leading to significant cultural changes in the Anglosphere regarding driving safety. The present footnoted sources in the article are more than sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Yes, the subject is a little bit obscure, no, the subject is not a household word, but this is exactly the sort of well-sourced biographical article that Wikipedia should have if it claims to be a serious encyclopedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning. AlanS (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some good work by EricEnfermero and per Dirtlawyer1 and it passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Kudos to EricEnfermero for his nice rescue work with expanded text and sources for this article. In his one 3,800-byte edit, this article went from a likely "delete" for lack of anyone being interested to a clear "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Milos Raonic tennis season[edit]

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

Fails tennis notability guidelines. Only players who have won a grand slam event are entitled to a player season article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Article types and recommended practices Wolbo (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual tennis season of an otherwise notable professional tennis player. Please note: WP:NSEASONS, by its express terms, only applies to team seasons, not sports seasons of individual athletes. Furthermore, while I am glad to hear that WikiProject Tennis has adopted internal project standards and/or rules of thumb applicable to stand-alone articles for individual tennis player seasons, WikiProjects do not make binding Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines. To qualify for inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article, an article subject, in the absence of a specific notability guideline, must demonstrate the subject's notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. GNG requires that there must be significant coverage of the specific subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In this case that means significant coverage of "Milos Raonic's 2014 season" -- not Milos Raonic (for whom an article already exists), not the 2014 ATP Tour (for which an article already exists), not the individual tournaments in which Raonic participated (for which all of the majors already have articles), and not for Raonic's 2014 promotions and endorsements. That signficant coverage must specifically cover the specific subject of "Raonic's 2014 season," otherwise the subject fails the general notability guidelines per GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above... does not meet consensus guidelines for inclusion.... no major championships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per in the ongoing AfD of 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:16, 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. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria redevelopment tram services[edit]

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

This page is nothing more than a timetable for trams. It does not provide much context and does not indicate the notability of the subject. Passengerpigeon (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTIMETABLE. If any sourced information were in this article, it could possibly be added to Manchester Victoria station#Victoria Metrolink station, subject to WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:RECENTISM etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 20:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article's creator has also created Victoria redevelopment. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nobody in their right mind would look for this information on Wikipedia, and the article is so sloppy it doesn't even say where Victoria is.TheLongTone (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & NOTDIR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Kings (2012 painting)[edit]

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

I do not believe this painting is notable. Most of the sources in this article don't have anything to do with the subject (the painting) itself, it seems to consist mostly of original research interpretation of the views of a living person (the artist), and the image of the painting has not had its permission confirmed through OTRS at Commons. Holdek (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI cant actually find enough to establish the notability of the painter, let alone this one painting. He has a biog on German wiki, but it's poorly sourced.TheLongTone (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a deceptive blizzard of sources, but all describe Gaddafi's death ... NOT the subject of this article. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 19:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly going on the fact the article is largely not about the painting and there isn't a sourced article about the painter, Gerd Mosbach, either (which makes the notability of his work highly unlikely). Sionk (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a bunch of sources, but almost none of them are about the actual painting. Seems to be a general lack of sources actually about the painting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional mix[edit]

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

Looks like WP:OR. The phrase "promotional mix" occurs in lots of marketing books according to GBooks, but this article cites only one of them and actually gets the definition and the citation wrong, according to 82.192.238.55 on the talk page. Therefore, I think WP:TNT applies.

(I don't have access to the book, so I haven't been able to verify or falsify.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a standard marketing concept. See Contemporary Marketing or Essentials of Marketing, for example. Improvement of the article is best done using ordinary editing per our editing policy. Deletion is inappropriate because WP:TNT is not policy and it would be disruptive. Andrew (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the notability of the concept. I'm doubting that any of the information in the page is reliable. I know AfD is not cleanup, but unless someone with knowledge of the subject rewrites it, I just can't tell which of the information is worth keeping. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I never have to dig up that Marketing textbook, but here goes. According to page 432 of Phillip Kotler and Gary Armstrong, Principles of Marketing (14th ed., Global Edition) (ISBN: 0-273-75243-X), a promotion mix (or "marketing communication mix") is the specific blend of those five aspects "to persuasively communicate customer value and build customer relationships" (and then those five things in detail). So turns out the problem was a definition was lacking all along? 野狼院ひさし (t/c) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basic marketing concept as per Andrew Davidson. Notable subject, article improved as per WP:HEYMANN, references, multiple independent reliable sources meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following good fix by Tom. WP:TNT is not needed now (could need more expanding though). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:12, 29 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) Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Bush[edit]

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

PROD was removed with the rationale "there are sources in the infobox". First, I don't care if there are "sources" in the infobox. For a BLP there need to be sources for every para in the text. Second, these aren't "sources" these are just generic external links. This is a BLP. Either do your job as a serious encyclopedia editor or get out of the way and let this be deleted, per WP:BLP. If you don't have the time to take an article seriously, don't make the encyclopedia suffer its presence. Note: yes, these are all very valid arguments for deletion per WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY is secondary. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - reliable sources provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Civil... Anways guy was a first round NFL draft pick and played in games, therefore he passes WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 06:25, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would seem to meet WP:GRIDIRON. There also seems to have been a misinterpretation of policy. WP:BLP states, "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion.". At least one statement, not "each and every statement". Please also see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is clearly notable. As for verification, some of the facts were already supported by the links in the infobox (one of which is now used in a shiny ref tag). Then I did a google search and added two citations to local newspapers. Not all the facts are yet supported but it does not now warrant deletion. I question whether the nominator did their WP:BEFORE, as I found those sources relatively easily. BethNaught (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above and Passes WP:Athlete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject clearly satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in 116 regular season NFL games across eight seasons. That having been said, at the time of this AfD nomination, there was not a single in-line source in the entire article, and therefore it was a BLP violation and subject to deletion. Now that several editors have added multiple in-line footnotes verifying the subject's NFL career, I would ask the nominator to graciously withdraw his nomination. NGRIDIRON is clearly satisfied -- it's not even close at 116 games -- and the BLP concerns are resolved. Let's not waste any more time on this particular AfD; there are much harder cases that need our attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- What dirt said. The AfD served its BLP-driven purpose and should now be withdrawn.Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirmed that Bush played for eight seasons in the NFL, and was a Super Bowl champion (to say nothing of his having won a national championship in college, as well). WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the nominator, EJ, the issue was not notability, but the failure to source a BLP -- unsourced BLPs are subject to deletion per WP:BLP, but that problem is now resolved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer, this was clearly a pointy, bad-faith nomination. Let's face it, this was a BS, garbage, time-wasting AfD nomination, plain and simple. And I feel that the nominator should be called to task for that. This was as clear a keep as you could possibly find, on multiple levels. Again, what about WP:BEFORE? Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep especially in light of new sources added. I'd like to think the nominator was only trying to generate a discussion that would lead to better sourcing of BLPs going forward, but the fact that he started with a PROD (which is "discussionless") makes me doubt it. I get irritated by people deleting correct, non-controversial articles and information from the encyclopedia without trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. To me, that goes against the idea of creating a better encyclopedia. Rikster2 (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, quite the opposite is the case. PRODs get peoples; attention. As do AfDs. This BLP sat there unsourced for seven freakin' years. WP:SOFIXIT is a lame excuse, I can't fix everything that's wrong with Wikipedia, obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you started with a mechanism where an article can be deleted without discussion, then "settled" for AfD after the PROD was removed (and complained about it). No, you can't fix everything that is wrong with Wikipedia (join the club), but in the time you took to PROD then AfD this article you certainly could have added a source or tagged it as needing sources or put a note on WP:NFL and said "this thing has no sources, somebody who knows this stuff go fix it." Rikster2 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true, but anyway, the point is moot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's absoutely true, but you're right, it's moot now. Thanks for doing the right thing and withdrawing the nomination. Rikster2 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - now that reliable sources have been added, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CHU Chung-shing[edit]

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

I assume this was translated, but it has been done poorly and I struggled to understand all of it. I also think it fails WP:ANYBIO and maybe WP:GNG NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE (4b, 4c), sources include [8] and [9]. It was poorly translated from the corresponding article on our wiki. Blow it up and start over.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT without prejudice to its recreation. The subject is certainly notable, but machine translations like this are a curse. Needs redoing from scratch. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass basic notabilty requirements, as an award winning artist which has received in-depth coverage in independent media. I'm not moved by the above "blow it up" arguments. WP:TNT assumes that the content is worthless. It's a terrible translation, but it appears to just needs some simple copyediting as it is still basically readable. It's got info and refs, so let's fix it. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC) On second thought, since all of the content and the refs are alive and well in an easy-for-humans-to-read format on ZHWiki, why not nuke it, since it would be perhaps easier to translate from Chinese than to translate from this slightly garbled machine English. Either way there should be an article on this topic, because of general notability. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 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 01:24, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Very obvious machine translation. Even retaining the faulty table header that is also present in zh:朱忠盛 is a dead giveaway. Also FYI for future reference, the brand he created (一代極品) has an official English name "Prestige Crafts" according to an official site. [10] 野狼院ひさし (t/c) 13:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Horribly translated. should re-start from scratch. SmileBlueJay97 talk 06:59, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hynes (politician)[edit]

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

Mary Hynes is the member of a county board. This is a position that almost never is enough to make someone notable. She previously was on a county school board, another non-notable position. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source that the article relies on is unreliable and primary.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does not get past WP:NPOL for the role, and isn't well-sourced enough to get over WP:GNG in her own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable good sources. Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:54, 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 userfy. Will move this (back) to User:Warsage/Lester Yocum as requested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Yocum[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The references cited in the article are not independent of the subject. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The awards listed are not notable; no evidence that the subject meets WP:ARTIST or any other criteria of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move: After further research and consideration, I believe that this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I'd like to move it back to my user space. Warsage (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy There is no indication of WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. He has published some books, but they all appear to be self-published. There just isn't any independent indication of notability. He may eventually be notable, but he isn't now. I am One of Many (talk) 04:10, 20 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, Guerillero | My Talk 04:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article provides no references that support the notability of this organization beyond it's listing in a directory of alt-med practices. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. The article doesn't have any verifiable sources that demonstrate notability, and after doing a cursory search for sources on online news websites, there probably are none. Clearly fails WP:GNG because there aren't even any sources to assess the reliability of. Karzelek (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSCHOOL. I am unable to find substantial coverage of the school, but there are enough trivial mentions in reliable sources to show that it is a legitimate post-grad professional school on par with the optometry equivalent of Southern California College of Optometry. It appears to be one of seven schools accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education [11] which is recognized as an accrediting body by various states and provinces that license the practice of naturopathy (e.g. [12], [13]). This is also confirmed by trivial mentions in various academic sources (e.g. [14], [15], [16]) and national, state, or provincial professional associations that might not be considered "independent of the subject" (e.g. [17], [18], [19]). Listing with Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [20]; other professions have similar associations that would be considered reliable sources. I also found non-trivial coverage in The Best 168 Medical Schools by The Princeton Review (pp. 386-387), but it appears to be an entry submitted by the school. Location (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The "accrediting association" mentioned above is a sham fringe group of dubious notability itself, and does not lend any notability to the subject. The Princeton review mention is not independent, but written by the school itself. Other mentions are trivial, and added together amount to far too little to meet any of our notability guidelines. My own search turned up nothing significant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the notability of the CNME, but it does appear to be an authentic accreditation agency: "CNME is recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as the national accrediting agency for programs leading to Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND or NMD) or Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) degrees."[21] Sure enough, it's listed on the US Department of Education's website. Location (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep it's a real school, giving courses leading to a real degree. The only reason for deleting it is an objection to the subject that it teaches. (As it happens, I share the view that what it teaches is fringe science at best, and I wish very much its degrees were not accredited and did not lead to a license to practice. Unfortunately, it's otherwise. WP presents the real world, not the world as some of us would like it. ) DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 20 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, Guerillero | My Talk 03:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm in agreement with DGG's post at 05:55, 20 August 2014. I've had a brief look and have seen enough to satisfy me that it's a
Quote: real school, giving courses leading to a real degree.
and yes,
Quote: The only reason for deleting it is an objection to the subject that it teaches.
Schools are schools and degrees are degrees. Some may refuse to recognise these degrees whilst many others accept them readily and they're also a requirement in certain professions. Good Strong Keep here. (Boss Reality (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. It's undersourced but the place exists and I think it is notable enough, whatever reservations I have about the quality of the article in its current state. Libby norman (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as per DGG's comments. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:35, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USB Stickler[edit]

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

The product described in this article has not been mentioned in any independent sources; I do not think it is notable. I should point out that the article was previously tagged for speedy deletion (a bit overzealously) a few minutes after User:Seattledude created the page in 2009. The deletion at that time was denied in order to give the article a chance. I think now that a few years have passed deletion can be considered again. Gccwang (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, it doesn't look like this product ever actually made it to shelves. The article talks about it as something that was currently in production as of 2009 and a search doesn't show any proof that it released or at least that it ever became notable enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similarly, I can't find any evidence it's out there. I think it has had plenty of opportunity to be rescued, given the previous notices and the talk page discussion that happened way back when, so this suggests no reputable sources exist and it should be deleted as non notable. Libby norman (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Nothing in the way of WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:36, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Académica de Coimbra season[edit]

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

Extensive listing of sports team player stats. No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. - Mr X 02:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NSEASONS. @MrX: may wish to refresh his knowledge of this as it clearly states that such articles almost always meet notability requirements, so it would be useful to understand why this article does not meet GNG rather than the simple statement that it does not. This is an article about a season related to a club playing in its country's top professional league (and in this case a fully professional one). Furthermore, this is an article about the current season and so is by definition in development, NSEASONS is quite specific that redirects to the club should only be made if no sourced prose CAN be created. Has any attempt been made to contact @Krankl12: to discuss the addition of sourced prose? I can see none. Given that this is clearly a notable subject by current guidelines, I would recommend withdrawing the AfD until discussions are concluded as to whether or not sourced prose can be added (and as this is a club playing a top league in a country whose league is of good international standing it almost certainly can once the season proper gets under way). Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it's purely a stats listing and nothing more. It's simply not ready for publishing in the main space, and it doesn't seem as if the author plans to do anything other than add more stats to it. Note that I did not declare that the subject is not notable; I wrote "No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG." New page patrollers don't bear the BURDEN of proving that an article is notable, especially when any available sources would presumably be non-English. I don't object to moving the article to draft space or redirecting to the team article until someone adds some sources for verification and some supporting prose so that readers have context.- Mr X 12:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fenix down. Giant Snowman 12:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NSEASONS, this is the season of a notable team which plays in a fully proffessional league. IJA (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Fenix down and per WP:NSEASONS.It plays in the Primeira Liga which is a fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnytsia old Water Tower (kalancha)[edit]

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

I found nothing to prove notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely pointless nomination. Wikipedia is not paper. Just because something is not notable to someone from outside the U.S., doesn't mean that it's not notable. All this article needs is a good polishing and copyedit and it is in good shape. § DDima 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is most likely notable, as a registered monument, and I note that the two sources given at the bottom may well demonstrate that, but it is a very poor translation and much of it is not comprehensible. I have listed the article in the cleanup section at Pages needing translation, and it would probably help this discussion if editors who can read Ukrainian could improve the translation. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I completed a cleanup. This is a listed building, which are traditionally notable in the English Wikipedia; additionally, two Ukrainian references which are in the article are good enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many thanks Ymblanter, and I trust your judgement on the sources so that confirms my hunch that it's notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 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. Upon reviewing the article and searching myself for further WP:RS I see a major challenge with this type of article? Is it notable? Maybe. Are there RS, unfortunately not. Even looking at Anime convention there are practically no references to speak of, and those that are listed would generally not be considered as reliable. With that being said, RS and N are two very pillars of this site, and to operate with articles not reliably sourced goes against the core premise of the project. I do not intend this rationale to be prejudice for further AfD's and I hope RS can be found for all. If additional RS come to light I have no problem with any admin restoring article. Tawker (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naru2u[edit]

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

Article deleted by PROD, then userfyed at the request of the author. It has now been restored without changes to notability. No coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried finding coverage, but there just isn't any out there for this convention. It's listed in the usual anime/manga convention databases (AnimeCons, etc) and there's a smattering of blog and forum posts out there, but there is no actual coverage in places that would be independent of the N2U and in a place we'd consider to be reliable. It's just your typical run of the mill small anime convention, the type you'd see pepper the landscape of any country. It just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a disclaimer: Esw01407 asked for my advice about how to proceed with this article, so I was aware that this would be coming to AfD. He did not ask me to vote one way or another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nearly all of the Canadian Anime Conventions listed on Wikipedia are poorly covered by external sources, even Anime North which is Canada's largest convention. So if we deleted this one, it would set a precedent to delete them all, especially since most are comparably small in size (e.g. Nadeshicon, Animaritime, G-Anime, etc.). That said however, I believe the convention is now defunct, so there's that. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Io Katai: I disagree size does not always tie into notability, you are talking about deleting them all while conventions such as Otakuthon has the notability. I would look for sources before placing them up for deletion one by one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Size is only relevant in that it suggests that there may be more sources available on the topic. So a small convention will typically have a lesser number of external sources talking about it. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that nearly all of the Canadian conventions are barely sourced and would therefore fail the reliability and notability guidelines. Using one counter example doesn't change that fact. I mean, looking up sources for Animaritime, Nadeshicon or G-Anime leads to nothing more notable than sources for Naru2U. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the deletion of this article wouldn't really set a precedent as we've had more than a few articles on small conventions of varying types get deleted at AfD. In general, most conventions tend to get fairly poor coverage regardless of where in the world they are, whether it's in America or in Canada. I've seen plenty of American anime conventions get nominated for deletion and end up getting deleted because nobody covered them. I could probably search and find about a good few dozen applicable AfDs that closed as a delete because it was a small con that got little to no coverage. In short, notability is decided by coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. While it'd be nice to keep articles on every con, we can't keep an article for any other reason than notability proven through coverage in reliable sources. We can't make allowances based on the size of the con- we still need the coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples from various different years. Most of these deleted articles are American conventions. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Basically, just saying that the only way to argue for this getting kept is to provide coverage in reliable sources. I don't mean that to come across harshly, just that it's the only way to show notability for anything by the current notability standards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then if the precedent already exists, we should follow up and nominate the others mentioned for deletion as per the same reasons. All I'm saying is to be consistent when applying rules/guidelines. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there just isn't enough reliable sources about Naru2u to meet notability guidelines, unfortunately. Even "usual" sources, such as Anime News Network, have very little to no coverage. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:13, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Harron[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claims of notability are as a smalltown mayor (reeve) and as an unsuccessful candidate for election to the provincial legislature — neither of which is a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, and there's no real prospect of him passing WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far short of notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Klemperer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNote that I have stubbed the article removing blatant copyvio from [22] or possibly from a site copying what webpage. The material I deleted is no longer available for view but can be seen at the linked web page. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSBIO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional additional sources and references arkiii Arkiii (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for taking the time to add sources, but they are not WP:Reliable sources or proof of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This article was written by Arkiii who says on his talk page he is Adolph "Fito" Kahn, another article he wrote. He is obviously close friends with the subject. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 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 01:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Kwa Wan 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. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Wikipedia is not a directory of places or tourist guide book. The article was previously PROD but contested as, "It is a major thoroughfare and most major thoroughfares in Kowloon have an article". However, being a major thoroughfare is not the test of notability used by Wikipedia. Most thoroughfare in cities worldwide do not have articles. This article remains as single sentence dictionary entry to this date. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:56, 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 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Mong 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. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Wikipedia is not a directory of places or tourist guide book. This article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD under notability, which was contested with the comment, "oppose deletion on prod" but no reason given and no improvement made to the article so the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:57, 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 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kandy Wong[edit]

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

Seems to be a not-yet-notable musician who has had some film/TV appearances. The person doesn't seem to meet any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. She may be up-and-coming, but up-and-coming doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article — she must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 13:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC) --180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:35, 21 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 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Pretty arrived in Hong Kong media (most frequently referred to stage name Tong Mui/糖妹), but possibly lack in English sources. Suggests referring also to zh:黃山怡 (herself) zh:糖兄妹 (group). --野郎院ひさし _{(talk) (contribs)} 05:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are aware that local notability is irrelevant? A singer who has had only local coverage in Washington DC, for example, but not in nationally-published sources, will not get an article here. Sources should be at least regional, not just local to Hong Kong. I cannot read Chinese, but if the coverage is just Hong Kong, she certainly hasn't "arrived". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are also numerous sources in mainland China. ([23][24][25][26][27])@Amatulic:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First and last of those sources won't load (malware detected). The second is a dead link.

The third and fourth sources appear to be about the band Sugar Club, not about the performer, giving her only a trivial mention. That might mean the band is notable but those sources do not support inclusion of a Wikipedia article about the singer. Remember, notability is not inherited. I am not seeing non-local sources that provide significant coverage of this person. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The third and fourth sources appear to be about the band Sugar Club." How did you find this? The band is not even mentioned in these sources.@Amatulic:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third source mentioned above, Google Translate has the phrase "sugar sister" which may be a mistranslation on Google's part. The fourth item talks about "sugar club" and nothing else. In any case, neither page contains the string "黃山怡" which is the name of the person. Therefore, without knowing the language, it is safe to conclude that these pages do not constitute significant coverage of her. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, neither page contains the string "黃山怡" which is the name of the person. That's right. Because these sources come from mainland China, you should search for her name in simplified Chinese rather than in traditional Chinese. The string "黄山怡" or "糖妹" does appear in each of the five sources. Full disclosure: I am Chinese and contribute to both Chinese wiki and English wiki. See my global contributions.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has won multiple notable awards, which seems enough for WP:MUSICBIO.(verified by [28])--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those awards notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles? Are the awards verifiable by the award source? And most important, are the awards applicable to the person, or the whole band? If the band won the award, that doesn't make the person notable for Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check Meh I know/care too little about contemporary mainstream pop music to actually say more than that indiscriminate comment. Striking !vote and suggest possible Merge with Sebastian Poon (AfD) to become the Sugar Club article, which probably make a better case with them awards that above (tries to) put forward. No objection to delete too. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:50, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom! (MCN)[edit]

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

Multi-channel network on YouTube with no strong claim of notability — it asserts one ("11th largest MCN on YouTube"), but sources that claim only to a stats counter and not to any actual coverage in any actual reliable sources. Delete unless the sourcing can be beefed way up. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 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 01:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). This short discussion is somewhat leaning toward a merge result, but not quite due to a lack of adequate participation. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Poon[edit]

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

per WP:ANYBIO in a band that doesn't have a WP page and been in one movie and one television drama. The article is also unsourced. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:01, 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 01:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Funny the other half of the band is also in AfD, and is just 2 posts above. Anyway providing similar links for reference as I did in that other AfD: zh:潘雲峰 (himself) zh:糖兄妹 (the band). And IIRC the band not having a page does not imply lack of notability. 野狼院ひさし (t/c) 04:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Strike and suggest merge See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandy Wong
Move to Sugar Club and merge Kandy Wong. The sources provided at the related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandy Wong suggest that the band meets our notability criteria even if the individual members do not. I have no objection to merging this article and that one into a Sugar Club article, which does not yet exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:14, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Baars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had any significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Additionally there is a lack of in depth third party coverage [29]. Please note, this article has previously been deleted through AfDs for the same reason. AlanS (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:02, 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 01:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Cartoon[edit]

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

This rapper doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO as far as I can see. This article is about all I could find. The article's creator is User:OSO ImagingPRFIRM, rather blatant COI. Fortunately, this is that account's only Wikipedia "contribution".Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:03, 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 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bazalgette[edit]

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:BIO. Is not regarded as an important figure by his peers/successors. Is not known for originating any new concepts. Has not created any significant works that is the subject of the works of others. Additionally there is a lack of in depth third party coverage [30]. AlanS (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Vapors, where his career after the band can be summed up in the section there. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 17:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor International Film Festival[edit]

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

Appears to be solely for advertising, would be a WP:G11 if common sense told me not to after seeing sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:SELFPROMOTION at this point. Written by a WP:SPA who seems to be trying to channel Douglas Adams with the section headers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon MarnetteD, but maybe we can assume a little good faith? Making only six edits on his very first day here does not "automatically" indicate a SPA, so much as it reflects his being a brand new editor. Heck... in a month he could have several dozens of decent edits if not chased off. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon MichaelQSchmidt This editor meets the criteria laid out here Wikipedia:SPA#General test and there is no reason for me not to note that in my decision. Remember that AGF is not a suicide pact. They may choose to become a full fledged editor down the road but I see no evidence of it at this moment. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW This and this indicate that JC Limoges has some connection with the festival. MarnetteD|Talk 15:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a bike ride is not quite an overwhelming indicator . When I see a new and inexperienced editor, I choose to think the instructions at WP:DONTBITE should be used to modify any over-dependence on the advice of essays, and would hope a presumption of innocence supersedes a presumption of guilt, but that's me... and if the editor is chased away, we'll never know for sure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep of this brand new article by a new and inexperienced contributor, and allow now-tagged issues to be addressed. We have sources available, and it appears improvable. So if tone and advert can be addressed, why not allow it to be done? Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not going to speculate on anyone's motives, but this looks notable. Besides the listed sources, there's extensive coverage at cbc.ca: [31], [32], [33], etc. Also, there's coverage by an American source: [34]. Worst case scenario, someone can rewrite the article. Preferably not me, but I guess I'll get around to it eventually if nobody else does. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Based upon learning that the festival shares itself with its sister city Detroit just across the Detroit River (the US version being the Detroit Windsor International Film Festival), and appears to have the coverage to meet WP:GNG, I've upped from weak keep to keep. Any issues with tone can be addressed through regular editing and does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planetimer[edit]

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

No sign of WP:NOTABILITY in article; Google results are a sea of sales sites, rather than anything indicating real notability. User ID of article creator is the same as name of item's inventor. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:15, 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 01:48, 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 redirect to Madison Metropolitan School District. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES & nom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia O'Keeffe Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school, should be redirected to Madison Metropolitan School District. Jacona (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 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. → Call me Hahc21 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy gate[edit]

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

Estate agency, which fails WP:ORG and asserts WP:INHERITORG regarding James Caan link. Mentions only seem to cover industry pages, but nothing outside this. No references. scope_creep talk 18:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very run of the mill real estate sales company. Really little more than spam. It does not inherit notability from one of its investors. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little coverage, and in dubious sources which talk more about how Caan has invested in a startup (a standard event) than how there's a noteworthy new startup in town. Not notable. BethNaught (talk) 09:53, 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 redirect to Vallivue School District - I'll hold off on the protection since it's only happened once. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vallivue Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. It was redirected to Vallivue School District, but that has been reverted, landing it here. Jacona (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - again, and fully protect for a short while. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:33, 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. This should be treated as a WP:PROD deletion because there are no meaningful "delete" or "keep" opinions on offer. The one "keep" opinion seems to incorrectly assume that this is the article about the movie, and for the "delete" opinion see WP:JNN Sandstein 08:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor's New Groove (franchise)[edit]

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

A number of these being created of late. No sources to indicate the "franchise" itself is notable, just a summary culled from various other articles and non-notable topics. Doesn't serve much more purpose than a disambiguation page or navigation box (see {{The Emperor's New Groove}}). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add context to this discussion, these are the other franchise articles for Walt Disney Animation Studios films (plus the Pixar ones):--Coin945 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (franchise) (1937-present)
Fantasia (franchise) (1940-present)
Cinderella (franchise) (1950-present)
Alice in Wonderland (franchise) (1951-present)
Peter Pan (franchise) (1953-present)
Sleeping Beauty (franchise) (1959-present)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians (franchise) (1961-now)
The Jungle Book (franchise) (1967-present)
Winnie the Pooh (franchise) (1977-present)
The Little Mermaid (franchise) (1989-present)
Beauty and the Beast (franchise) (1991-present)
Disney's Aladdin (franchise) (1992-present)
The Lion King (franchise) (1994-present)
Pocahontas (franchise) (1995-present)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (franchise) (1996-present)
Hercules (franchise) (1997-present)
Mulan (franchise) (1998-present)
Tarzan (franchise) (1999-present)
The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) (2000-present)
Toy Story (franchise) (Pixar)
Monsters, Inc. (franchise) (Pixar)
Finding Nemo (franchise) (Pixar)
Cars (franchise) (Pixar)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh, really not notable.Forbidden User (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this very good movie for watching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaala Samrajya[edit]

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

No indication of notability, article entirely unreferenced Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Kaala Samrajya Deepak Bahry Bubby Kent

Comment: Being unreferenced does not mean an article cannot be improved with just a little effort. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:04, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 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 01:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Broad Ripple Gazette[edit]

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

Article, edging dangerously close to an outright advertisement, for a community newspaper with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability under our inclusion rules for publications. Every last "reference" here, in fact, is a primary source of one sort or another (content on the newspaper's own website, the blogs or business websites of individual people listed in the contributors list, and on and so forth) — so none of the sourcing properly confers or demonstrates notability, and the paper is not automatically entitled to keep an article on here just because it exists. There's also an apparent conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the person noted in the article as the paper's founder. So in this state it's a delete, unless real sources can be brought to bear. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the newspaper. We are an all-volunteer community newspaper that has been published for more than 10 years. The paper is enjoyed by more than 7000 residents every two weeks, it doesn't just "exist" as you put it. We have no interest in advertising for it. I am trying to honor the long list of volunteers and the historical stories we have written over the years. All of the entries are by me because no one else could possibly have this information. I think it would be a shame to remove the page, but if you do not want this information about what we have accomplished for our neighborhood, then I guess there is nothing I can do. I don't see how this is different from the page for the Indianapolis Star. Those facts have certainly come from employees of the Star. Mine did to. I am the only employee are the Gazette. I started the paper in 2004 and do the layout, writing, and delivery. Our volunteer writers would not have any of the information that I have posted. Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, a newspaper has to actually be the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Most major daily newspapers actually do pass that test, and it's absolutely possible for community weeklies to pass it too — we don't have a "small vs. large" bias when it comes to newspapers, but we do have a requirement that whatever size the publication is, the article still has to cite proper sources that support a claim of notability which satisfies WP:NMEDIA. The Indianapolis Star wouldn't be allowed to keep an article either, if it wasn't citing any legitimate sources to demonstrate that it belonged in an encyclopedia — but it is citing legitimate sources, while this article isn't. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editing that has occurred is arbitrary and irritating. I am unwilling to have a partial list of the long history of writers, the main reason for the page. The ones someone has deemed "keepable" is completely without thought or consideration. If this is what can stay up, then please remove the page completely. If that is something I can do, please let me know. -Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The editing that has occurred" was not arbitrary; as I've explained before, you need to cite reliable source coverage, and the change that you're taking issue with was the removal of anybody in the writers list whose inclusion there was entirely unsourced. Please also read our conflict of interest rules — if you're the publisher of the paper you do not get to control the content of a Wikipedia article about it (it gets controlled by our content rules, not by your demands), so what you're "willing" or "unwilling" to have in the article counts for nothing either way. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So even though I created the content, I am not allowed to delete any of it, but you are? I will no longer support Wikipedia or any of the content of the Gazette page. This is not something I wish to be associated with. I plan to share this with my 7000 readers, Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC) What you are not understanding is that you have removed so much pertinent information that what remains is an inaccurate depiction of the paper. It leaves writers in that did little, and leaves off those who wrote for years. It is now a misleading article and should be removed. -Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.187.147 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted, but the reason why that's the case is because it isn't compliant with our content rules. Not being compliant with your wishes is irrelevant to the question, because we don't exist as a venue to publish promotional advertisements. We're an encyclopedia, not a marketing database, and it's our rules or nothing. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - could this be appropriately added as a section in the article on Broad Ripple? And it could also be linked from the articles on the other communities it serves. In such a case, I think it would be best to drop the table of writers, although if any of them have independent notability, they could be linked from the Broad Ripple article. Also, if the community is served by other newspapers it would only be fair to at least mention them. LaMona (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be an acceptable solution too (Media in Indianapolis would also be an acceptable redirect target) but very little of the content here is properly sourced enough to be included in Wikipedia at all — so for the moment the most we could do would be a single sentence in the target article acknowledging that the publication exists. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 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. Sandstein 08:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Quebec[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are similar lists including List of wineries in Western Australia. I think the issue is the number of redlinks - perhaps change this list to focus on all wineries in Canada? Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find all the wineries in Canada, ones that actually have articles I would be in favor of Re-targeting JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wineries of Canada might be a good place to look. And it looks like one list might be sufficient for all Canadian winery articles. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and improve~~ - people inexperienced with Wikipedia will not be looking at categories. A lot of Quebec cuisine and agrotourism-related articles are pretty sparse both here and on fr.wiki, despite it being a rapidly-growing industry. It could use a cross-link to Quebec wine and {{Canadian cuisine}}. I wonder if "vignoble" shouldn't be translated to "winery," as well. There are also some wineries missing from the list; it should be cross-checked with this list. - Sweet Nightmares 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The category was identified to point out where we should look for what articles we have on Canadian wineries to get a sense of how large of a list we need. There is no Category:Wineries in Quebec, and apparently the only article we have on a winery in Quebec is Vignoble Carone. So unless you can give a good reason why we should list non-notable wineries (i.e., those that do not merit their own articles) when we normally do not do that for companies of any kind, there is no basis for maintaining a separate list just for Quebec wineries rather than one list for the whole country. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what your argument is, but I'm still leaning towards soft keep. When this list was prodded in 2008, someone left a pretty useful comment here. I agree that probably only Morou, Cep d'Argent, and l'Orpailleur need articles, but not every single element on a list needs to have a blue link. As I said, improvement of Quebec-related articles, especially ones about food, is an ongoing goal for WP:QC. Regarding what is "normal," we do have List of breweries in Quebec; should it be scrapped also? How about List of wineries in Missouri, List of wineries in Ohio, and all the other wine-related lists? With that being said, it's true that this leaves the opportunity for "shilling," and users can use Google or the Route des Vins website to find out about Quebec wineries. Had this been a request to merge the article elsewhere, I might have agreed. - Sweet Nightmares 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced by SweetNightmares' WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. There might be an argument for creating a list article that mirrors the category of Candadian wineries, provided it provides useful information beyond a mere a regurgitation of the category contents. But that isn't what we're discussing. Rather, we should be discussing how this particular article complies with WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no purpose in listing non-notable companies, other than to attract spamlinks. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your reasoning that it's going to attract "spam links" and why you think this will be a problem? Regarding the policies you listed: WP:NOTDIR is for things like listing addresses, phone numbers, prices, etc., none of which is being done on this article. In applying it so loosely, you could easily dismiss virtually every other list of locations ever made on Wikipedia. About WP:INDISCRIMINATE: that policy is there to prevent people from inserting long and useless data where doing so would be inappropriate. Is this list inappropriately-placed long and useless data? Absolutely not.

At the most, this article should be remade into a category or merged into Quebec wine. What I really think should be done is a merger into List of Wineries in Canada with the inclusion of other wineries across the country. - Sweet Nightmares 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SweetNightmares, regarding your first paragraph in your response above, in my long experience here I have seen cases where lists of redlinks attract external links, often enough that I view such lists as something to be nipped in the bud. That's where WP:NOTDIR comes in. As to your second paragraph, I have no disagreement with deleting this article in favor of a category, or merging material into a larger list of Canadian wines. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SPAM problem with lists of this type is that editors (usually people with a direct conflict of interest, such as the company's own marketing director) often try to replace the redlinks (and sometimes even bluelinks too) with direct offsite links to their own corporate websites. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 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 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary purpose of a list of anything, on Wikipedia, is not to be a comprehensive directory of all things that exist within the parameters of the list regardless of whether they have Wikipedia articles or not, but specifically to help people find Wikipedia articles. I'm sure this was a good faith creation at the time, but if six years later there's still only one blue link in the entire list, then it's not really serving a particularly useful purpose at the present time — and if even SweetNightmares thinks that only two or three of the redlinks really have much potential of turning blue, then that's still not a terribly strong vote of confidence that it can become more useful than it is. Delete; no prejudice against recreation in the future if we ever have a reasonable number of articles about wineries in Quebec for it to link to. I wouldn't object to merging it into a Canada-wide list as proposed above, but the category reveals that we don't have a particularly large number of articles about wineries elsewhere in Canada either — so I'm not entirely convinced that a Canada-wide list would really be all that helpful, rather than just a reduplication of Category:Wineries in Canada, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Five years ago, I voted differently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Maine (November 2009), which is worth looking at. After five years, I think the delete voters like Agne there were probably right. These are not really useful lists to our project, they are directories. In any event, a list with one blue link is not a viable list, and its not a list of notable items, as most items on this list will not be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon F. Robins[edit]

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

Actor, writer, producer who is non-notable. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR scope_creep 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His IMDb credits aren't significant; the best of the lot looks like Jump Out Boys, which doesn't qualify as a significant film. The article does claim he won for best documentary at the Seoul International Film Festival, but that just redirects to Seoul, and it doesn't seem to even have a website. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 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 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaun Banega Champu[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines of wikipedia. Param Mudgal (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently there are no citations to reliable sources, much less any in depth coverage. Being a spoof or a parody of a notable game show, Kaun Banega Crorepati, does not grant notability. Since this article has been around since 2007, there has been plenty of time to develop it, if it were going to be developed. --Bejnar (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Short-lived but quite a popular show. [35] [36] Sunil Grover, who spoofed SRK in this show became quite popular. Actually, Grover spoofed SRK again in Kya Aap Paanchvi Fail Champu Hain? [37]. Grover gained popularity through these several spoofs. While redirecting, if not keeping, is a better option here; am confused on whether they should redirect to the original show i.e. KBC or to Grover. Paanchvi Fail Champu should also see the same result of this AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 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 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin Morgan-Richards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one of the sources listed in the article [38] cover this person in any great detail. This reference won't load for me (and is a blog so not a reliable source), this reference also won't load, and this source doesn't mention this person at all. A cursory Google search doesn't turn up any sources where he is covered in-depth. So in my view he is no more notable now than he was two years ago. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside the article you mentioned, articles 1 and 9 also contain biographical information in great detail [39] and [40]. The other articles support his notability having founded the annual St. David's Day Festival (largest in the US) and founder and publisher of Celtic Family Magazine (largest print publication in US about Celtic cultures). How is this other publisher any more or less notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Stead Susangrigg1 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply to this article. Founding a company or event is one thing, but establishing notability for inclusion in Wikipedia because of those circumstances is another. Regarding the links I specified as not being able to be seen the Google Chrome browser would not load them for me, so I am unable to verify the contents of those sources, so perhaps someone else can. Sources where this person is quoted also doesn't establish notability, hence the reason why the article is up for deletion discussion. It will run for as long as it needs to determine whether or not the article should be kept. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, thanks for the clarification ArchAngel ;) Hopefully someone can open those links and see if they are verifiable.Susangrigg1 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Celtic Family Magazine (if that passes the notability test). I was able to see the links mentioned above, but #9 is to the publication in general, not to a particular article. #1 and #2 are interviews with the subject which don't really count for notability IMO. I don't find the required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 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 01:36, 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 keep. Absence of English sources per se is not a reason for deletion, and, as noted in the discussion, it is likely that multiple sources are available in Slovenian. The article currently has one source, so that it certainly needs attention (preferably from a Slovenian speaker), but we do not need to delete it. I do not see any consensus for a redirect/move at this point, though if someone creates an article about the author this becomes a viable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gospodin Franjo[edit]

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

Foreign-language novel with no claim to notability. Article in local-language Wiki has no references. Mikeblas (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly the novel doesn't deserve its own page, but the writer might well be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Is it possible to create a page for the writer and move the novel onto that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Assuming that a novel from a hundred years ago in a relatively minor language is non-notable simply because its article is an unreferenced stub is rarely sensible - cultural works that are highly notable in their own language communities can easily be almost unknown to Wikipedia editors. Similarly, one should rarely assume non-notability from a lack of reliable sources in a Wikipedia article in another language - most other Wikipedias are distinctly less insistent on full sourcing than English Wikipedia is these days. In this case, a GBooks search rapidly reveals at least one detailed reliable source in English, and suggests that there are likely to be more in Slovene. But those will probably need searching through by a Slovene speaker. PWilkinson (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to author's name. This novel does have some coverage in English language sources: Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation: Literature and Cultural Politics in Yugoslavia. The author has more. See, e.g., The Former Yugoslavia's Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook. I echo PWilkinson's suggestions about moving slowly where century old foreign works are concerned. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:05, 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 01:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 17:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Sinha[edit]

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

2 appearances in television shows and one supporting role in a film are not enough to prove sufficient notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for "seen in shows". I sometimes even see the cameramen when I am watching the TV very carefully or they're acting very carelessly. :) Not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, has significant coverage in reliable sources, Times of India, Daily Bhaskar, OneIndia, Times of India, Zee News, India TV News, OneIndia, Times of India. Chander For You 16:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanderforyou:The first TOI, Daily Bhaskar, Zee news and India TV news sources say that he was in awe of Karan Singh Grover. The OneIndia source says that he was sacked from Kubool Hai. The 2nd last source says that he plays a supporting character in a film and the last source offers nothing new. Please check your sources carefully. So far he has appeared in 2 TV shows and played a supporting character in a film. That hardly meets WP:NACTOR. Dhoom 4 is also covered in several reliable sources but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. Perhaps you can create an article on Sinha when he has achieved enough notability as an actor. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 28 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 Not Cool (disambiguation). No clear concensus to delete after two relistings. As an alternative to deletion redirecting to new disambiguation page reflects consensus for redirect/disambiguation. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Cool[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename / Redirect to The Chair (2014 TV series). The parent article which the references use has not even been created yet and this can cover both competing films as well as the show itself which is airing on Starz in September. This does not need to be an independent article unless the film wins the contest and is released. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:45, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about upcoming commercial activity is using WP for publicity. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:57, 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 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shane Dawson - I think most people would be finding this movie from Shane Dawson's article, so redirecting it to him, for now, would be best. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as appropriate; it seems to be too soon, and to fail GNG at this point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create disambiguation page, as this is also the name of an album by Tim Easton and a book by Greg Gutfeld. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a largely indescriminate list focusing heavily on a recent event. Our concern for lists is not merely that each entry be supported by a source but that some encyclopedic constraint on entry actually exists. In this case the only constraint is that someone famous dumped a bucket of ice on their head for charity. There's not much of an upper bound for entries there and more importantly, there's little preventing the list from becoming a directory of specific events shown to exist.

Participants (on both sides) note that the Ice Bucket Challenge is "notable" and that individual members are notable, but this list merely represents the intersection of those two things. The clever memetic nature of the challenge makes managing this list quite difficult, as a number of advocates for deletion have noted. Although that is not, by itself, cause for deletion it's a good indicator that the list represents only that intersection.

Further, the size and nature of the list itself makes a merge highly problematic. Many editors have noted that merging this list into Ice Bucket Challenge will cause that page to grow unwieldy quickly. I'm inclined to agree. Even if we retain this as a standalone list, the nature of the list itself subverts reasonable attempts to cut it down to size. Proposals that the list be limited to particularly significant participants or actions are bound to be difficult and contentious because the list itself is indiscriminate. Again, that's an editorial concern but it flows directly from the reasons for deletion.

Those arguing to keep the list have noted (correctly) that each element meets the MOS on lists of people. While true, that's merely a guide to what goes on the list and not proof that the list is constrained by some encyclopedic interest. If we're interested in bringing the MOS into the discussion we could just as easily look at our guidance on standalone lists which points to the limited value of indiscriminate (though blue linked) lists.

By the numbers, the debate is relatively pitched. We do see some sockpuppet/SPA contributions, but that's not by itself dispositive or reason to distrust the sentiment behind keeping the list.

The compelling counteraguments which find support are, variously: the list itself isn't a red linked mess, the size/nature of the list makes it inappropriate for the related article, notability is permanent (directly responding to the RECENT charge), and the list itself is meticulously and prodigiously sourced. However, the arguments for deletion flow from relatively well established policy (mainly NOT) and even if we accept the majority of arguments to keep the list, the concerns about its indiscriminate nature remain. As such, I see a consensus to delete the list. I agree with many comments that a merge would be undesirable or difficult to accomplish and I don't think the title is a likely search term, so a redirect (with or without history) seems unwise. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants[edit]

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

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

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

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

Indiscriminate list of people in the Ice Bucket Challenge. Having a list of everybody who dumps ice water on their head and donates to charity is hardly encyclopedic, and would be similar to listing all the participants in a marathon. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I worked on this article several times during the last days when I typed in names of Ski athletes including video references. Somebody frequently deletes those names. It seems to me that somebody removes all names of people who are not well known in the US... As there is no guiding principle on which prominent names should be included this article should be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ma75k (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ma75k: One, just because you're having a problem with an editor doesn't mean that you should delete the article. Two, where else could US Olympic athletes Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn be well known? Dominique is the only one you added with this edit who's still on the list, and Dominique is Swiss. Maybe the reason Lindsey was deleted was because you spelled her name wrong. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Ice Bucket Challenge, I don't think a separate article should have been created in the first place. I understand that the list is quite long, but the majority of coverage from the Challenge seems to come from the celebrities participating in it, so it is useful in that regard.LM2000 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I didn't support splitting from the main article initially, the list has grown considerably. It's well sourced and I believe the Challenge is as notable as it is because of the various famous participants, so this list remains useful. A collapsible option on the main Ice Bucket Challenge remains a better solution than total deletion.LM2000 (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. While this list should not exist as a standalone article, I do not believe that it is as indiscriminate as the nominator claims. The overwhelming majority of people listed are notable individuals with articles whose participation is sourced by reliable media sources. So long as only notable people whose participation is sourced are included, I believe that this list will be fine for inclusion on the Ice Bucket Challenge Page (preferably under a collapsible to prevent it from taking up too much space). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I voted to merge this list into the Ice Bucket Challenge article, it looked like this:[41]. It was much shorter, better organized and sourced and listed a proportionate amount of people who were legitimately famous. Now, it is unorganized, sourced poorly, incredibly long and contains a disproportionate number of people who only just meet notability requirements and are thus not particularly famous. While I debated several people on this point, I am now going to have to agree that this list is indiscriminate, or at the very least to overly broad to be of use to anyone. While I'm exited that so many people have contributed to this cause, I think that it has ultimately been demonstrated that any living person with an article could potentially be included on this list. I would not be surprised if the number of people potentially covered by this list entered the tens or even hundreds of thousands.

Now, the reason that I originally wanted a merge was because I felt that the fact that so many notable people from so many different fields were participating was an important aspect of the Ice Bucket Challenge to cover in the main article. However, at this point it would just be simpler to create a section in the article that directly states this, and perhaps namedrop a few uber-notable individuals (such as former president George W. Bush) whose participation was covered by reliable media sources (and by reliable I mean CNN or New York Times quality, not celebrity gossip sites, not sources owned by the notable subject and most certainly not YouTube or Facebook). While it would be possible to do a selective merge, it would ultimately take far less effort to start a section in the Ice Bucket Challenge article from scratch than to merge this list. As such, I support a delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actually. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for listing this, either. People have dumped ice water on their head in the past, and will in the future, but this list refers to a specific calling among celebrities, and isn't indiscriminate. Certainly not everyone notable will complete this challenge, and arguably, it's already on the downswing now. I'm a little concerned the list would weigh down the Ice Bucket Challenge article, which I imagine is why it was split off in the first place. As long as redlinks and entries with unreliable sources are kept out (so far, so good), I see no problem with this. --CrunchySkies (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge is a significant event in social sciences domain. A list like this will help in understanding its reach very easily. It should be renamed to 'Notable ALS Ice Bucket Challenge participants' or merge to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge article. Anu Raj (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate list, with no clear reason to suppose there is even a close connection between the various people so involved, and the whole thing is just plain trivial. This could be List of people who support awareness of X and would just be plain overly broad. This is just another example of extreme recentism and too much emphasis on passing fads in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was siphoned off of the Ice Bucket Challenge article because it was getting too long and overwhelming the article. I think it's too soon to delete it. It has notability. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic that makes it quite simple if one remembers this is not yahoo news. 208.54.80.186 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is too many notable characters to merge, and also many story, such as pointing Neymar out Zúñiga. I think it has potentiality to developing as add some news. And, celebrities in South Korea (for instance, Ryu Hyun-jin) also participated it -so, size will bigger.--Reiro (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list will keep growing over the time, so you can't merge it with the main article, and it's very interesting --Mimiru123 (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Not sure why this list is described as "indiscriminate" as the criteria seem quite clear. I'm not saying it's very interesting or useful, but still seems to be encyclopedic. Awaiting the celebrity charity marathon with some trepidation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a long and growing list, and can not be merged into the main article. It has got a lot of media coverage all over the world and definitely is notable. The Ice Bucket Challenge article has got over 1 million page views in the last two days alone. 117.192.170.214 (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many many notable participants and the challenge itself is gathering a lot of coverage in reputable publications.Soupy sautoy (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, this is indiscriminate information. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are too many mentioned now, but in a way we may think we don't know x person and then he might be important in his country? Anyhow the page is a mess now. A new editor has started categorizing, which is good, but it's done per activity. Maybe it should have remained as it was and we only should have created sections per letters and then write next to the person what he does? 83.134.218.196 (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I want this page to be kept because I like knowing who has done the challenge, but that is basically WP:LIKEIT. However, the article is well sourced. JDDJS (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a notable list of notable people doing a notable thing. It should be kept on that basis alone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge. Spirit of Eagle has hit all the important points. The article is well-sourced, but has no need to stand alone. JimVC3 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my opinion as the list has changed. Once again, Spirit of Eagle has hit all the important points. This is no longer an encyclopedic article. JimVC3 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, excessively trivial information. I can understand that it overwhelmed the article, but why have it anywhere on Wikipedia? Not sure what a "notable list" is, per Étienne Dolet above; and, while the list certainly contains some notable people, I completely disagree that they're doing a notable thing. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

hmm, maybe not as encyclopedic as other chilly stuff, admittedly. But at least we know why all the ice is going ... Martinevans123 (talk)

Keep and perhaps rename List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants. It usefully completes the Ice Bucket Challenge article, giving information that people search ; the participation of famous people to the Ice Bucket Challenge has contributed to the large media coverage (in the US and abroad) and is a thing in itself. And the list is big enough (with 268 references now) to justify its own article. Could be merged, but definitely not deleted. Bosozoku (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can anyone explain to me how the subject of this list qualifies as notable for a stand-alone list per WP:NLIST? Where is the significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of this group of people as "Ice Bucket Challenge participants"? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-question - doesn't this article survive, at least partly, on the notability of the subject matter of the main article? If there are sufficient WP:RS sources supporting that, isn't this list notable by default - it's just more detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge... In the first place it should never have been removed from this article; and only notable people, with Wikipedia articles and references are in the list.Arussom (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has very high notability, due to its relevancy to current events. Also, it is a list of notable people engaging in a charitable cause, which is worthy of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ice Bucket Challenge is the main article for the What Ice Bucket Challenge exactly is, the participants' list could be huge, there a lot of celebrities that actually are doing it and more famous people will add to this cause. Does make any sense to have an Article where the List of participants are more important than the concept of Ice Bucket Challenge? I vote for keep the main article and have an article only for the list. 8110charlie (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, the last "keep" vote did it for me: we now have a growing sockpuppet farm voting to keep this article. There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:

1. User talk:8110charlie: contributions - no edits from January 2014 until yesterday

Why I am a sockpuppet? I use Wikipedia a lot but I don't edit it frequently. A coworker told me about this discussion and I were interested to participate in it. 8110charlie (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. User:Mohfinite: contribution - three total edits, and none since December 2013 until today

3. User:Bosozoku: contributions - five total edits, and none since April 2013 until today

4. User:Soupy sautoy: contributions - no edits from January 2013 until today

5. User:Mimiru123: contributions - newly registered account, all edits to the list or this AfD

Yeah, I registered recently. Because no one was doing what was necessary : 1) the list kept being deleted and created again on the main page, instead doing something clever. 2) Some people would keep deleting some names for some random reason (Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, for instance). 3) Some names were missing.Mimiru123 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. User:Reiro: contributions - three edits since January 2014

7. User:117.192.170.214: contributions - IP user, only edit is this AfD

It's time to request a sock puppet investigation. This AfD smells like a giant sock puppet farm, and someone is trying to game the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding SPI Update - I have initiated a sock puppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soupy sautoy. everyone is welcome to review the editing histories linked above, draw their own conclusions, and voice their opinion at the newly opened SPI. I am changing my !vote to a firm "delete." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion, there's no reason to suspect these are sockpuppets, and if you do, this is not the proper venue. The challenge has attracted an unprecedented amount of interest and coverage, even among young people who would ordinarily have little or no interest. The fact that lapsed editors are interested in the list is to me more of a sign that the challenge is hugely popular than a sign that something nefarious is going on. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because some of us are not active Wiki Editors, does not make us "Sock Puppets". Is this what the whole Wikipedia Editor Circlejerk people talk about when it comes to Contributing? Instead of jumping to conclusions regarding someone having the motivation to rig the votes, how about be receptive of the fact that people care enough regarding an article's deletion to make an account/re-log in and vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ok. I admit it. I have a secret sockpuppet. B. Gates (Medina, Washington) 18:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete It's a cute meme, and the meme itself is notable, but there is zero way a list of each notable (per WP) participate is encyclopedic material, most being primary sources. There are a few notable cases (for example, the Foo Fighters doing a Carrie-like approach to it) that have received more attention which can be used as examples, but a full list of basically what is doing a 1-minute act is a violation of WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a meme, and calling it that is a real disservice and blow to the suffers of this disease, who heretofore have had little or no voice. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something being a meme is not a shameful thing. It is just that - it is something that propagated quickly on the internet through social media. It also in this case is helping a charity. Hence the need to keep the main article. But as a meme, documenting every detail is not our purpose -that's what a site like Know Your Meme can go into. We need to summarize the major point, and that, in this case, highlighting a few notable challengers, not every single one of them. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I agree with the nominator that it's an indiscriminate list of trivial information - celebrities pouring water over themselves for 10 seconds is a hardly notable act or encyclopedic enough for a list. However, I am torn between delete and merge into Ice Bucket Challenge as it does add to the challenge's overall notability if it's proven that lots of celebrities have taken part. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should never have been made into a standalone list. However, I feel that it is unusual for so many celebrities, entrepreneurs and political leaders to video tape themselves getting doused with freezing water for a charitable cause. While not supporting the continued existence of this list as a standalone, I feel that the fact that so many notable people have participated in the charity is worthy of coverage within the Ice Bucket Challenge article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question to ask is , are those being listed (eg specifically the ones getting dumped on) actually following through on the charity aspect? The main article begs the question that one variation has people either donate $100 or dump ice water without the subsequent $10, eg just propagating the meme. As there's very little way to confirm that for some of the videos (like, its not clear from the Kermit the Frog one that there was a donation), then this is just "who helped spread the meme". Additionally, if this was a normal charity drive with an open register of donors, we would not list out who donated to that drive save for a few examples that were called out by third-parties. Every blue-linked person involved is far too indiscriminate in a case like this. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. I know that this has been criticized by some sources, but that is besides the point for this AfD. As for your point about charity drives, I completely agree with your point. I would note that the overwhelming majority of those who have participated are not listed. Hundreds of thousands of people have participated worldwide, but the list is obviously much shorter than that because only notable people who "were called out by third-parties" are included (any that do not met this criteria should be removed). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that it is relevant whether the celebrity donated money or not, as the rules consider getting drenched with ice water without donating to be a valid form of participation. Then this list has nothing to do with the charity effort. It's about propagating a meme, and we don't document each person that does that (even the subset of people noted by third-party sources). Since there's nearly zero effort to participate in the "spread" (filming yourself being dumped with water), that's gives no significance to this list. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of the ice bucket challenge are that a person either donate money or drench themselves with ice water. If they drench themselves in water, they are participating even if they have not donated money. Whether you want to call getting drenched without donating "charity" may be a point of debate, but people who do this are still participants by the definition of the challenge. I honestly do not understand how someone can fail to be a participant in an event that they are taking part in.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they aren't participating, but now from the standard of WP's indiscriminate information, this is basically an equivalent to a person using a specific hashtag. There's no effort or end result beyond a feel-good aspect. Add that this is purposed set to be a 3^N viral expansion, and there's no practical end to this list. We do not document events of this trivial nature to this level, period. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge: When this list was a part of the main article, it dominated the article both in size and in edit frequency, making maintenance of the rest of the article difficult. If it is merged back into the main article, I expect the same problems to arise again. I'm happy with deleting or keeping the page, but I oppose merging. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Break[edit]

Delete I'm glad someone nominated this list for deletion. If not I would easily have. I totally agree with the nominator. Purely unencyclopedic list, can I add myself to the list too? I feel like that's what this list is encouraging and many of these celebrities don't even donate! JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, people are not supposed to be added to lists unless 1. they are notable and 2. their inclusion is backed up by a reliable source. So far, this list is in compliance with the guideline, so you would not be able to add yourself unless you are a notable individual (COI issues notwithstanding).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know the rules! I've been here for 5 and a half years I was just stating that because that's how the list feels like. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJay:, uh no. Technically speaking, you have only been here for 5 years, 6 months and 30 days. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There is no need to delete this as it is a current social craze which has been done by hundreds of celebrities. The views of some wikipedia editors should not be the ones that dimminish the celebrities who have completed this! 01:45, 22 August 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.64.38 (talk)

Just because some celebrities have taken part in a "social craze", why does that belong in a Wikipedia list? That's like having a 'List of celebrities who have been rick roll'd" or "List of celebrities who have posted a lolcat photo". I don't think it's notable enough to make a standalone list, especially when a lot of people in this list are Z-listers or only just notable enough to be on Wikipedia themselves. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 15:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? The celebrities who have taken part could probably buy wikipedia and a bunch of jobsworth editors do not need this much say on something that hundreds of celebrities and even former presidents have taken part in.

Comment@Dirtlawyer1: I'm embarrassed by nominated sock puppet, but I'm not sock puppet. I practice in Korean Wikipedia for 5 years[42], and have not active additional wiki accounts. --Reiro (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is indiscriminate and ill-defined, and unencyclopedic. Those are grounds for deletion, and not for a "merger." Additionally, and as a mere comment, it is an extremely asinine case of celebrities saying "LOOK AT ME!" when they pour cold water or icewater on their heads in response to a "challenge" from some other celebrity, to avoid having to make some small donation to a charity. In other cases, they do the "LOOK AT ME!" media event and also make some small charitable donation, further demonstrating the pointlessness of the "challenge." They should just get over themselves. They are not coaches who just won the Superbowl. Edison (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good summary of the problem that I'm describing in my comments above to Spirit of Eagle. It is a zero-effort feel-good publicity stunt for these celebrities, save for the handful that did something much more more interesting (eg Foo Fighters), and the brief list of those can be mentioned in prose in the main article. To document each one is feeding that publicity machine with no real reason. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's complete and well referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlybman (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list with no specific inclusion criteria. Most of the sources are rubbish - first party Facebook, Instagram and Youtube posts do not meet WP:RS. It's unlikely that coherent criteria could ever be implemented. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Modest Genius Wrong, most of the sources are reliable. Several new users or IPs have added people citing Instagram or Youtube as it was easier than looking for an article about them, but I'm sure that most of them can be backed with better sources; that problem can be easily fixed. --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first ten footnotes on the list, five are from Facebook.com, YouTube.com or Comicbooks.ocm -- none of which satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources per WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1 I know, but I'm saying that this problem can be fixed and we could remove the people where nothing else can be found. So yeah we can work on finding better sources if that's truly the problem. I for example always try to have good sources when I add someone new to the list. However, if you feel that the content overall does not belong here, that's another problem. ;) --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, but per policy, WP:PRIMARY sources are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ....") are OK for simple incontrovertible facts. ("A primary source may ... be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ...."). Softlavender (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SL, primary sources may be used to establish facts (but not notability), but we generally do not treat blogs and other self-published sources as reliable sources per WP:SPS and [[W{:RS]]. Bottom line: YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc., are generally not considered acceptable sources on Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't blogs, and they are not establishiing notability. They are the WP:PRIMARY sources used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Exactly per policy. Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although in general I hate deleting any content from Wikipedia this list is beyond pointless and has no value. There are way too many celebrities doing it and what level celebrity should we include as a minimum (everyone from B class KPOP stars and noname US wannabe actors are doing it). The list would number in the thousands. Even as a tool to raise awareness for ALS the entire fad is useless as nearly all videos forget to ask for donations and most celebs are not donating. kav2001c (talk) 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's entirely a judgement of the trend, and not of the notability of the trend. The fact so many notable people have been convinced to do such a strange activity is notable. Whether the campaign is effective is irrelevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that so many people have done it and has been documented is the reason Ice Bucket Challenge isn't going anywhere. But we don't need to document each individual person as long as sourcing points out that hundreds/thousands have done it already. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it needs some improvement, but it's a nice, well-sourced list. I can see some people's points in their deletion rationale. Now Neutral. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Delete The page is a non-encyclopedic list of "celebrities" pouring water their head. A list of those "celebrities", with RSs, who actually donated would be more beneficial. A simple video of the participants dumping water on their head does not prove they still made the $10 donation. Just because they videoed themselves pouring water on their head and posted it on Youtube, Instagram, or Facebook does not mean they participated in "charity", "philanthropy", "donations", etc. and in fact them dumping water on their head is a way of avoiding paying the $100 to ALS. The page will have high viewership for maybe another month or so and then will die down exponentially.

The list is literally growing by the minute and is getting out of control. Don't take this seriously but, it might almost be easier to note all the celebrities who have not participated in the challenge. :) Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't notable for Wikipedia. When someone will start an list article about all the prominent people who participated the necknomination? --Goroth (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thousands of celebrities around the world are doing this and the numbers of articles in this list are growing higher. I think we should add all the articles about celebrities in Wikipedia to this list in the future. And as some other users said, this list will die down exponentially a few months later.Keivan.f^Talk 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "ice bucket challenge" seems to be a notable fad. People like to appear in videos, and pretend for an instant that they are something special, and there is a weak association to a good cause. But there are numerous similar fads with articles, and the participants ARE NOT LISTED IN STAND-ALONE ARTICLES! In the articles about the other fads, only a few participants are named in the articles, because they started it, or because they were notable in how extremely they did it. See, for example: Phonebooth stuffing, Pole-sitting, Goldfish swallowing, Panty raid, Streaking,, Hunkerin', Planking (fad), Flash mob, and the very similar Youtube "challenges" Cinnamon challenge, Saltine cracker challenge, and Salt and ice challenge. I saw no stand-alone lists of participants other than a few mentioned in the articles for having originated it or somehow doing it in extreme or novel ways. Edison (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a fad, it's a charity fundraising drive event. Softlavender (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many people on this list are actually donating money, given they are taking the cheap way out of just dumping water on their head instead of actually donating $100 to the charity? In most cases we can't tell (I suspect some are, not all of these are avoiding the charity part, but we can't say all of them). --MASEM (t) 19:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstod the challenge. It's not a one or the other thing. The ice bucket raises awareness, and everyone who does the ice-bucket part challenge is encouraged if not expected to also donate. That's how the challenged has raised $53 million in less than two months. Softlavender (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, and as I know people personally have done it, the "alternate" rules of just dousing oneself with water to avoid any charity element is commonplace, so unless the noted celebs actually state "Oh, and I donated too", we cannot assume these people are donated. You take that out, and just noting who is raising awareness of a cause by showing a 1-2 minute video on social media is far from an event we should even be documenting. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may not be notable for other people, it is still a useful information for research purposes. Being encyclopedic needs all the data and information that it can get as long as it is well sourced. 112.198.77.131 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument (mind you, I can see how following the challenge-it-forward to investigate how the phenomena spread of interest to those in studies of social sciences but the data here is nowhere close to helping with that.) --MASEM (t) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - The challenge seems enough to pass muster, per WP:NOTE, albeit barely. A merge would only make the parent article much more unwieldy, so this seems to be the lesser of two evils. I would say revisit this after a couple months when the fad seems to have died down again before making a final decision as to its fate. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 18:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Critical article, meets any and all policies, and will eventually expand in scope to where there is no plausible way to contain in the parent. Neukenjezelf (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are multiple users participating in this discussion who have very few total edits and have not edited in months and in several case years. This has all of the hallmarks of one puppet-master employing multiple sock puppets to skew the vote in this AfD, including the following:

1. User:Neukenjezelf: contributions - 2 edits from August 2014 until today

2. User:112.198.77.131: contributions - IP user

Keivan.f^Talk 19:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I was going to suggest the same thing but you beat me to it. Meatsgains (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lengthy unrelated chatter

Keep has 402 sources, must be notable. </sarcasm></wit></humor></closingadminignore>--v/r - T P 21:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Well, I don't know why you said this, but because it has 402 sources it doesn't mean that it's notable. Some of them aren't reliable. We discuss about the material of this list here.Keivan.f^Talk 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I hope someone else is kind enough to explain this to you. I'm just going to headdesk. On a related note, how is the planet Vulcan this time of year?--v/r - T P 22:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: TP's post is what we call sarcasm... haha Meatsgains (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: AfD is no place for sarcasm anyway. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Says whom? Where is the policy?--v/r - T P 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Are you taking WP:SARCASM too seriously? Usually pages in the WP namespace tagged with "Humorantipolicy" say that you should do the opposite of what you really should. (Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies, for example.) P.S. Aha, I knew I saw it somewhere! Here it is. Specifically "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool." --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Who said anything about a personal attack? Who am I personally attacking? I think this is the time for your to graciously step out and retract whatever argument you are trying to make. There is nothing against humor on Wikipedia.--v/r - T P 06:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: So I should find someone else who is kind enough to explain something to me. If you want something to be explained, explain it yourself.Keivan.f^Talk 07:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done so. Since you apparently didn't get the obvious, and I do mean obvious, someone else will have to explain it to you. Sometimes people are incapable of seeing something right in front of them.--v/r - T P 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Let me tell you something. I don't need anyone, especially you, to be worry about what I see. I see what I want. And I think the obvious thing that you mentioned is right in your opinion but wrong in my mind. Keivan.f^Talk 08:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ping me? Everyone else understood me, I don't need to keep getting called back by you. Not my fault you are having difficulties. Either you are incapable of getting it or you refuse to get it. Either way, I can't help you.--v/r - T P 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I wasn't saying you personally attacked anyone, I just stated the line where it says to avoid sarcasm! Couldn't you see the bolded text? And don't say "there is nothing against humor on Wikipedia". There isn't anything against it period, but this is on AfD's page! I'm not against humor on Wikipedia at all anyway, but AfD is just not the place for it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so you cherry picked lines from an essay to support what you were saying without reading the essay in context? I see. The essay says not to use sarcasm to personally attack someone - it does not say not to use sarcasm ever. Next time, you should try not cherry picking.--v/r - T P 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Maybe it was just about personal attacks. Honestly I wasn't trying to "cherry pick". I read it as "Avoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you, avoid the use of sarcastic language, and stay cool." --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Righteo - that's my understanding too. So I ask you again, who was I personally attacking? My exact comment "Keep has 402 sources, must be notable. </sarcasm></wit></humor></closingadminignore>". Where is the attack and who is it directed at? Did you read the part of WP:NPA (a policy, unlike your essay) that says "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack"? It appears to me the only one here making personal attacks is you. I'll accept your apology.--v/r - T P 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: No, I meant "Do not make personal attacks, do not use sarcasm either" I meant not having anything to do with personal attacks! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Adding to that, I'd like to see someone else's opinion about this. Feeling that wherever I get into a dispute with someone more respected than me, they do everything but personally attack me, I always try not to personally attack others. I hope that once this is resolved we can be on good terms. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were never on bad terms with me, I've been screwing with you from the start. You should've bowed out earlier, I know these policies frontwards, backwards, upside down, and in the mirror universe.--v/r - T P 01:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the first sentence of your reply sounds like you were testing me to see if I'd give in, and the second sentence sounds like I'm doomed because I didn't give in? I still don't see why sarcasm is needed here, but I give up. Maybe I use common sense too much. I am an administrator at Wikidata after all (a place where common sense practically rules). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis, would you mind dropping this? It's prolonging a completely unnecessary thread in an already overlong AfD. Everyone, even people who voted Keep for real (that includes me), could see that TP was making an extremely well-labeled joke. Could you please just step back and call it a day, for the sake of those of us who want this page to be navigable? Thanks. If you have anything further to discuss with TP, please retire to his Talk page, if you would. Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: I said I gave up. One main reason I started with this was I thought TP didn't label his sarcasm, since Keivan was confused about it. Dropped. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article - per above. The article is filled trivia. Merging perhaps the most notable citizens into the main article. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Break[edit]

Keep as per reason by Soupy sautoy, Reiro and few others. Also, we have way too many sources and media coverige to delete it. When cure for ALS is found thanks to this, this will be even more important. This is not only trivia now, it will be historic event, i think. --94.189.198.68 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles based on number of sources. Additionally, the impact and importance is sufficiently described in broad terms (as in, not who did it, but estimates numbers of how many did it) at Ice Bucket Challenge, and that is in no danger of being deleted. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have time to read through all the reasons cited by other people here, but it seems to me that this is clearly notable, as large numbers of the participants listed here have their involvement listed in multiple sources online, and the list itself is well-sourced. I've already found this article useful, and unless the same type of list is also being extensively compiled somewhere else, then I'm sure many other people will as well. In fact, if it does get deleted, I might even request that a copy of its final state be moved to my userspace (if that would be acceptable), even though it wouldn't be getting updated anymore. I would support changing the title to reflect the fact that it basically just includes celebrities, though, if a new title could be agreed upon. Alphius (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not here to compile lists that no one else is compiling, that's original research. That's why the issue of the topic's notability is begged - not the notability of the ice bucket challenge, but the importance of knowing each person that has participated in it. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if we merged this list with the main article on this subject, it would take too long to scroll through. --23.242.72.149 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a list of notable individuals who have participated, it satisfies the requirements for a list article. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:57pm • 04:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Again some IP users are voting for keeping this list:

1. User:94.189.198.68: contributions

2. User:23.242.72.149: contributions

Keivan.f^Talk 07:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What value does this article serve? Who would actually read this article? I think that if you answer that question, you'll agree this article is pointless. The only possible reason anybody might find any interest in this article is if they're perhaps some kid showing off their own name. I learn absolutely nothing of consequence from the existence of this list. David Condrey (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expect it would be read by celebrities wondering which other fellow celebrity has not yet been challenged. Perhaps they need their own Icebucketpedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (p.s. quite frankly, David, your career in afternoon TV chat-shows, and pet-food commercial voice-overs is sadly over, luvvie)[reply]
Which means as soon as the fad/viral dies out, the list becomes useless. Yet another reason to delete. (And I haven't checked but I would suspect Know Your Meme would be the best site for this information). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
um, ice-cube salesmen? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point in the list to be fair. I'm sure people can google who has done it and if they look hard enough they may find a list somewhere in the internetverse. But the list will keep growing. People who don't currently have a wikipedia page may, in time, become notable enough in the future and be added to the list. It will constantly get "vandalised" with people adding or deleting participants. And if it becomes a thing and occurs next year... what then? Two separate list? One giant list? Then there's the people who don't do the challenge but still make a video saying they donated (like Chris D'Elia). And then there's the categories. Currently Actors/Directors/Voice Actors/Producers/Composers etc are currently lumped together... but as the list grows the chances that these will be split into subcategories is high and that in itself will cause problems. Then there's the people who fit multiple categories so appear more than once (Victoria Beckham for example, is on the list twice). And the definition of notable is vague. Does being famous mean it is a notable video? Or is notable when a celebrity does something different? Most videos are just people saying they are doing it, they nominate the next people and then dump the water on themselves and thats it. Mark Zuckerberg's is notable because of who he nominated. Dave Grohl's in notable because of the homage of Carrie. So yeah. I'm for deleting the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.155.253 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2014
Delete reflection of a short lived hype. The Banner talk 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with all 'Keep' comments above, It is an informative list on a popular current event. Not only will this be a current issue, but it is memorable event that deserves encyclopaedic coverage. 151.229.241.50 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not important enough 24.132.94.37 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this debate already and delete the article or we have to wait 5 more days? 83.134.218.196 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no consensus to delete. Are you proposing the AfD is closed early? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I would like but I don't know whether it sometimes happen or not so I was just wondering :) The list is getting out of control now. There may not be a clear consensus now, but you have to keep in mind that most people who were in favor of keeping it were either newbies (who created an account for this matter only) or not very active users in general, which could explain that they might not know Wikipedia's standards. Several users who have been here active for a long time have changed their vote since then. 83.134.218.196 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "weight" votes depending on length of editing. In fact we don't even have votes. But what would you regard as "in control" exactly? Oh, and as you are not editing with a user name, does that mean you are also "a newbie"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@83.134.218.196: I'm newbie in English WP, but I also heavy editor in Korean WP. So I am confident I know well Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Your comment makes me unpleasant.--Reiro (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you mean "Your comment makes me feel unpleasant." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC) p.s. my Google Translate fails spectacularly with Korean. [reply]

I write English originally in there, not Korean.--Reiro (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles for deletion about Same article In Korean Wikipedia concludes to keep it[43], due to it has notability and inform. And they says according to WP:WHATISTOBEDONE, it is "what a reader would expect to find".--Reiro (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What happens on other language Wikipedias has no influence on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. I just give a reference.--Reiro (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an interesting to list referencing notable people who have participated in the IBC for charity (...and notability) there are other pointless articles on wiki that could be removed that are not marked for possible removal. 5.198.122.169 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third Break[edit]

Merge to Ice Bucket Challenge it's definitely a plausible search term, but this page is basically a bloated WP:CFORK. Sourcing could definitely be improved, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBC. Probably never should have been split. Juno (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is a notable article subject in its own right; searches for "People who have done the Ice Bucket Challenge" are exceptionally common, as well as for the parent article itself. Ithinkicahn (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eight Hong Kong socks with nearly sequential IPs chime in with !votes in rapid succession; related commentary

~~Delete~~ as an worthless list of unmaintainable trivia. 27.122.12.72 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please delete~~ the dumb list already. Can we just end the debate early? This fails meeting any criteria for Wikipedia. 116.193.159.38 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not important enough 116.193.159.46 (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to voice my vote to ~~delete~~. I do not think it is necessary to wait 5 more days to delete this, the votes are clearly stacking up in favor of removing this content. This is a bane on this encyclopedia. This type of thing belongs on a pop culture blog, and not an encyclopaedia. 116.193.159.37 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Failing to meet even the most basic of notabililty guide lines. 116.193.159.42 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It serves of no value on Wikipedia. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Has no context of its own without the main article. This unmaintainable list, has no place on Wikipedia. 116.193.159.50 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not encyclopedic. It is simple this is not yahoo news 116.193.159.52 (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Six Hong Kong IPs vote cast delete votes within a half hour of each other... Somebody wants this to be over with quickly.LM2000 (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that the !votes (6 of them as I type) from 116.193.159.* should be discounted. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see 8 Hong Kong IPs directly above -- 2 from 27.122.12.7*, and 6 from 116.193.159.*. All are Delete !votes. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, you're right. The 27s and 116s are both from Hong Kong, so that's eight sock votes in a row.LM2000 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, they couldn't even make an attempt at sounding believable? Six nearly identical IP addresses voting in direct secession of one another — nothing suspicious about that. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable subject. My only suggestion would be to add a smaller list of the most notable people that have participlated in the Ice Bucket Challenge article's section. Biglulu (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and recentism. Sjö (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when there were fewer participants, it was reasonable to list all the notable ones, but this has now reached the point where the list is too long and growing too rapidly to be manageable or of much use. I agree with the nominator that this has reached the point of being an indiscriminate list. A notable person's participation in the challenge can still be mentioned in their own article, but we don't need to maintain a list of everyone who's done it, and shouldn't be trying to do so. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relates to a very recent event that will not be useful three weeks from now. Similar to a list of people who are drunk in a bar. That would be easy to document by referencing the tweets and Instagram pictures, it would not be notable. Even if the people themselves are famous, their participation in the Ice Bucket Challenge is not. I just don't think that the list has any lasting value. Banjohunter (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No lasting value of any kind except that of Most Ridiculous Article Ever on Wikipedia: regrouping here the indiscriminate and potentially limitless list of those famous people who had rather a bucket of cold water poured on their heads than pay 100 bucks to a charity is... both ludicrous and indecent. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if people would please stop misrepresenting this as "people who had rather a bucket of cold water poured on their heads than pay 100 bucks to a charity". All of the notable participants I've come across have donated. It's certainly not a one or the other thing -- this is an awareness-raising activity and a call to donate. That's how the foundation has raised $70 million in three weeks. So I'd say nearly everyone notable participating is donating. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Unless they specifically say they have , you have no evidence that every person on this list donated. I know some have clearly made sure to say they donated (like Neil Gaiman's this morning), but again, as pointed out in the article on the ALS challenge, some have simply been dumping water and avoiding the charity so we cannot assume that everyone has donated. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: No problem, Softlavender: so let's restrict this list to those people who did donate, since this would be a welcome clarification. As it is, I am entitled to believe this is just a list of people preferring a bucket of cold water to a donation. Sad! --Azurfrog (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. The list is of notable people who participated in the challenge, not how much they donated. If you really think that notable people who can afford to donate did not, I personally find that incredibly cynical and misanthropic. The challenge has raised $80 million in three weeks. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much did they contribute? the minimum $10? the recommended $100? <sarcasm>WOW</sarcasm>. Those types of charitible donations are done all the time by average people, so it is super trivial. Now, if they poured water over their head and made what I would consider to be a reasonably donation that went beyond the "everyman" aspect that the challenge originally captured, like $10,000 or more, then that would be something to possibly document, but you'd need to site that first, and in the bulk of these, I'm not seeing any mention of the monetary amount they gave each time. Again, no one is trivializing the overall outcoming, but the documentation of this fine a detail is not WP's job per WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to make a note that the page now has 646 references. Meatsgains (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly, as it shows that this list is both indiscriminate and potentially limitless. --Azurfrog (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With at least half of them from social media sites (youtube, twitter, instagram, facebook). That's not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY sources can be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source", per policy. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine to validate, but does nothing to show the notability of the action of the person getting dumped on with ice water. If this was based on a list compiled by a secondary source, that might be something, but compiling it ourselves is a problem. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I’d just like to point out that this article is over 130,000 bytes long, which is enough to justify a split per WP:SIZERULE. While sizerule applies less strongly to lists, this list is only going to get bigger and bigger in size as more and more of the 670,000 living people with articles participate or are discovered to have participated. In all likelihood, if this list is kept it is either going to become one of the most massive lists on Wikipedia or split off into multiple separate lists. While not alone justification for deletion, I feel that this demonstrates some inherent problems with the list. (Note: I've already voted). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument feeds the reason why this list is indiscriminate information. No one else in the world is attempting to document this (specifically, the who's who of who is doing this), and as such, engaging in original research and failing notability guidelines. We don't just include information because it is verifiable, we are to be summarizing external sources, and as nearly all external sources only highlight a few people, that's how we should approach that, making this list completely out of line for WP. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely agree with this analysis. While a few people on this list have been covered by multiple reputable sources for there participation, the overwhelming majority have not. I supported a merge earlier on, but have since changed my vote to delete when I realized the inherent problems with this list. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before the list was split from the main article a consensus was in place that participants could only be listed if a secondary source was available. It would be useful if that rule goes for the separate list as well.LM2000 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a useless collection of non-encyclopedic trivia and due to the fact that similar lists have been deleted for other memes/viral events which this essentially is.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a very notable and significant event that has gained wide coverage. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is reason enough to keep Ice Bucket Challenge, about the event. But the list of people that participated violates WP:IINFO. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/Merge While the subject itself is interesting, and I do think it would be nice to have one place to go to look for every notable person, I don't think WP is the place. I do agree that keeping a small list of uber-famous people in the main article would be a good idea. For clarity's sake, by uber-famous, I would define them as names known world-wide. People like George W. Bush, and Buzz Aldrin would definitely make that list, and rightfully so. But keeping a comprehensive list of all even moderately notable people is likely going too far. Speeddymon (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) - Not a sockpuppet ;-)[reply]
Delete It's a useless collection of non-encyclopedic trivia. For example, it is impossible to record all members of Mensa International. It is also ridiculous to have Samsung Galaxy S5 as a participant. --Good afternoon (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Good afternoon (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete since there are tens of thousands of pageviews each day, with 700+ references, meaning this article is useful to people, particularly to reporters who can use it to cross-check facts. I know pageview counts is not a valid criterion for deletion but it is a strong indication of usefulness. The topic is notable with numerous WP:RS, and having this list separate on a page can help keep the ALS Bucket Challenge article from expanding out of control. Whole article is getting out of control and is too difficult for us to police with numerous additions of Facebook and YouTube references; plus Masem's argument has merit.~~--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)~~--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness is also not a reason we keep articles, and notability is not determined by the number of RS but the quality of the coverage they provide which in the case of considering the documentation of all people that have done the ASL, is not there (individuals, yes, group, no). --MASEM (t) 13:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically you are correct, but in practice, think of all those people who added names, who read the article, who want to see their names on this list, who use the list, who refer to it, who add names to it -- think of them as a HUGE constituency that you are battling with here. They say this list is notable. You are saying it is not, somewhat like Xerxes trying to battle the waves. It is not clear to me whether for a list to be notable, it has to be discussed in the media as a list; my sense is that most lists in Wikipedia do not conform to this requirement. But if it is a requirement in Wikipedia's rules that lists have to be notable as lists, then there are sources suggesting the long list, itself, is notable, such as this one saying "the long list of celebs", or this one which says "the two then rattle off a list of celebrity nominees". Notable subject, pop culture phenomenon, the ALS Bucket Challenge is notable, this is a subject directly related to that subject, and a useful (had to use that word again, sorry) way to keep both articles within limits.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arguments about the effort going into the page and the number of pages is also an argument to avoid for deletion; we're looking at how this fits in with the fact we don't keep indiscriminate information. The fact that a large # of celebs have taken part should definitely not be lost, but the specifics of who's who that's done it to the level of resolution this page tries is not something shown notable by others (for one, they focusing on notable celebrities, while this list includes more people beyond that). And there is the issue that this article is getting far out of control, showing the problem with keeping within a limit - that's the first sign it is indiscriminate. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't address my point that there were sources indicating lists were notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I did - I pointed out that while "lots of celebrities participated" supports notability of the Ice Bucket Challenge, as they don't actually BOTHER to list the celebrities to any great degree shows that the exact details of that list is not notable. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep or merge. As much as I think this article is worthless and should be deleted, I don't think it's an indiscriminate list if multiple reliable sources (even some as big as BBC, CNN, etc.) report on some of these people taking part. A large percentage of the unimportant crap with YouTube or Facebook as the source should be purged and leave only the most notable participants (ie George W. Bush, which gives a few thousand Google News results) and if that list can get small enough, it should be merged with the main article. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically everyone has done it. Thus the list serves no purpose. -Koppapa (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic material. A.aman (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User has 5 contributions. --CrunchySkies (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a fad, and that makes the individual event of doing it trivial. The whole thing is quite notable, of course, but that doesn't mean that everyone who does it and is notable should get listed. That these individual events can be referenced (by something better than a YouTube link) is irrelevant--it's just part of the fad. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is trivial, and in any case should make a single sentence in the celebrity's main article. A short list could be added to the IBC article itself in-line. Having a list as a separate article would be like having a list on which celebrities are vegetarian, or Manchester United fans. It adds no valu to the encyclopaedia in my opinion. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this list is unnecessary. Other similar articles such as Cinnamon challenge and Saltine cracker challenge do not have lists, nor should they. Zell Faze (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable subject which has resulted in almost $80 million donations to the ALS Association, whether it was the people who completed the challenge who donated money or not. Clearly, from the number of people who want to keep the article, edited the article, and search for the article, people do care about this information. It appears the people arguing for deletion simply don't care about the information for their own uses, but according to WP:CARES, "not caring does not always mean not notable." Even someone arguing for deletion said people should be able to use Google to find a list somewhere on the internet - but there isn't, and why can't Wikipedia be the one to support the list so charities and individuals can see how a social media campaign spread across all varieties of notorious people, whether they are actors, politicians, researchers or what. WP:PNJCS - Sure, maybe the list includes some kids that just want their names on Wikipedia, but when this event dies in a few months, editors can easily remove the non-notorious and clean up the article. I still think the information about which celebrities participated can continue to benefit the charity as interested parties look up who participated in the event and become inspired to donate or become involved in ALS research. Refer to WP:DEMOLISH, WP:IDL. Echennessy (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Even someone arguing for deletion said people should be able to use Google to find a list somewhere on the internet - but there isn't, and why can't Wikipedia be the one to support the list" - This would be original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to summarize sources and not create new material, period. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to "Ice Bucket Challenge" - This list is simply an extension of article Ice Bucket Challenge, and thus should either be merged or kept to the extent that it is properly referenced, with unreferenced material being deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to merge this article -- it's far too large. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: PLEASE IGNORE ALL MERGE !VOTES BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS FAR TOO LARGE TO MERGE. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If it is not possible to merge this article because of its size, that only implies the possibility of splitting the page somewhere down the road. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary and also a never-ended list. I don' think we can have a complete list of IBC players.--Foamposite (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User has <50 contributions, and this !vote was their first edit in 11 months. --CrunchySkies (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite a notable event, massive media coverage of it. This is a valid content fork from the main article, it too long to fit there. As long as the person got media coverage for doing it, then they are notable enough to be on the list. Dream Focus 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Only Wikipedia could create this. Its essentially a fork of the challenge articles; inclusion requirements can be hashed out through the normal process.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only Wikipedia could create this." is pretty much a nail in the coffin for deletion as that is a sign of original research. We should not be creating original material. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the coffin I'm thinking of has never been shut in the context of lists. List of animals with fraudulent diplomas.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that list has the same problems and if you look around, it is an example of the type of list that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. We should not be dealing in the trivia. That said, however, that there is definitely interest in other sources in explaining problems of colleges with lax standards or that are diploma mills that use the example of animal/pet degrees as an issue, so there is some justification for explaining some cases. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading others' statements and looking over the article again, I concur that this list IS quite bloated, even if we got rid of all the poor referencing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Break[edit]

Comment This nomination is getting excessively long. Anyways, if you look at most of the Keep votes are: It's useful, I like it, it's interesting, Ice bucket challenge exists so this should, its well sourced, its popular has a lot of page views, its notable. Like someone said above merging would not be plausible because of the excessive size too. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many notable fads that involve celebrities at some point. Imagine if we had, at the beginning of Twitter's popularity, begun a List of people with Twitter accounts. bd2412 T 18:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, you're suggesting we'll eventually see 500 million ice bucket challengers? That would be quite a big list. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This, although for a worthy cause, is a passing fad and this list is barely notable now, and will be less so the longer it grows. All 'lists' are of dubious quality if there is an article on the subject at hand. In this case, there is and the article is in no danger of being deleted. Please put this list out of its misery. Fylbecatulous talk 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to vote Keep, but I'm kind of conflicted. As someone who has worked very hard from the infancy of the Ice Bucket Challenge article I can tell you that merging would be a mistake. The article would become too long and cumbersome to easily read. This article grew out of a splinter of the original article and the latter is better because of that.--Deathawk (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why many feel it could be merged is the article has become increasingly bloated and much of it is rather poorly sourced. After cutting out all the bad sourcing, it would be more manageable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More manageable, but still not manageable enough. Back before the list was first split from the main article, it was much shorter and more carefully sourced than it is now, but it still took up a large proportion of the page and interfered with editing the rest of the article. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a way to only include the participants that had the most notable ice bucket events, there might be reason to keep it. This would need to be elevated beyond just being in a third-party source, and more than just an article that is "Hey, look, X did the IBC". To compare, List of Internet phenomena is a list that requires a major, high quality RS to make note of the fact that the specific item is one that meets the guidelines. This prevents that list from becoming a second copy of Know Your Meme. If a similar inclusion criteria could be found here, I would be all for keeping this list. However, when I go through the sources, ignoring straight up YouTube links and the link, the bulk are "okay" RS sites but are aimed at a "Look at me" type fashion (TMZ, Daily Mail) or too tied to the industry or local they cover to be independent (for example, notable video game developers sourced to video game sources is not good enough, or a local paper reporting on a local celebrity doing it). I'm looking for things like the NYTimes or the BBC to report on these. But I don't think such a level can be set well at this article, and it will always be a challenge to rein in inclusion (compared to the Internet phenomena article that we're having very little problems with). Hence deletion still makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A potentially very long list of people who don't have very much in common. The "Keep" rationales don't cut it IMO p b p 22:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see any valid reason for deletion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE obviously doesn't apply since this list is restricted to people who have done the ice bucket challenge, an indiscriminate list of people would be one where people were randomly added. Also "not being encyclopedic" is not a valid reason for deletion either.AioftheStorm (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminate applies to lists that have reasonable bounds, as this list has, even if there are inclusion requirements. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has a list of things it refers to, this isn't one of them. This is not an indiscriminate list. Dream Focus 00:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes it is - as someone mentioned above, this is basically equilavent to a list of people with a Twitter account. The "act" of participating in the IBC is extremely trivial just as getting a social media account, and as such, it is a trivial indiscriminate grouping. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As written there is nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE indicating that it would apply to lists with reasonable bounds, that seems the exact opposite of what indiscriminate is meant to address. And to state that a list of people with Twitter accounts would be basically synonymous with a list of people who have done the IBC is hard to take seriously.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Just because it's not explicitly written doesn't mean it doesn't apply; most that argue about the indiscriminate nature here are point out that the act of participating in this event is too trivial to be a significant defining factor, akin to setting up a Twitter account. We would never list out the latter, and as such would never do the same here just on the basis that we can source that the person participated. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It isn't simply "not explicitly written" it is conspicuously absent. Also, reliable sources haven't written articles to the effect of "Look at how many celebrities are signed up on Twitter" or "Look at how many people have the letter a in their names", however, many articles by reliable sources have been written noting how many notable people have partaken in the ALS challenge. If participating in the ALS challenge is as trivial as having a Twitter, why don't we see any news stories informing us of occurrences along the lines of "Bill Gates and several others have created Twitter accounts"?AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has anyone noticed two very important things? Firstly, the sheer length of this article and the amount of names makes it much less useful, but more importantly, much less notable: the usefulness has mostly been reduced to finding certain names, as I can't imagine anyone seriously wanting to look through a large pile of names without Ctrl + F. Even then, it's much easier to search "bill gates ice challenge" on google and find the source directly with it. The notability suffers even more from the length (and this has probably been said before): this article might have been notable when it was much smaller. But now the list is so large that it's severely bloated and reduces the value of any notable names on the list. There's not just a few anymore, there's probably around 300 and counting, way beyond most other Wikipedia link articles. The second thing I'd like to point out is how the article has passed the point of sanity in terms of who's being added to the list. "Non-humans"? Why are Muppets and Sesame Street characters on the list? But more importantly, why is a smartphone on the list? It could be argued that the former mentioned characters may have some notability, but do you have any reason for a smartphone being on the list? Isn't this supposed to be a article about notable people who took the challenge? It's just nonsense now. For these reasons (plus other people's reasons in this discussion), I think this article should be deleted. Ajducks (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also a deletion rationale not based on policy. Just because you cannot imagine people wanting to look through it(despite it being one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia) doesn't mean a topic should be deleted otherwise many of our obscure topics would be deleted. We have a policy on list notability WP:LISTN that nobody seems to be citing, probably because arguments about a list being too long aren't mentioned in that policy. And why shouldn't non-humans be listed? This is getting to the point of editors thinking a topic is silly and therefore not wanting it on Wikipedia rather than a topic violating a specific policy or guideline.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - LISTN only clears the case where the complete list itself is notable (such as list of US Presidents), and does not give any advice either direction for other types of lists because there is no clear consensus when and where they are kept. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AioftheStorm I agree with Masem. This is probably the only list article on Wikipedia (categories not included) where names are formatted more like a phone directory than an actual list, and Wikipedia isn't a directory. Since there's no general consensus on lists, I'd like to compare List of Presidents of the United States with the article in question (List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants): there's a lot to notice in terms of notability. The List of US Presidents article is a well formatted list article. All the people listed on the article are relevant to the topic, have extra information to show notability, and (until the next election) it's a complete list that will not undergo major content changes. On the other hand, the ice bucket article is hardly formatted at all. There's no way of telling if the hundreds of names listed there are truly notable to the article, and it's a incomplete list, which means names could potentially be added forever as more people do the challenge, making the article more irrelevant, excessively large in file size, hard to read, and even more of a mess. As for the non-human category issue, the article is very disorganised as it is. I can't really say much on that, and as I said, the inclusion of Muppets and Sesame Street characters are arguable. But the smartphone is inexcusable. It is the only object in the whole list, not to mention from a specific company, Samsung, which makes it feel like an advertisement as there are many other phones with waterproof abilities which can take the challenge just the same. It would be more appropriate to add the ice bucket challenge information to the phone's article itself rather than the list. Also please note that page popularity is not a valid argument for keeping an article which may not be notable. I was just suggesting the most likely way people were using the article (by browser search function). Ajducks (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: User Ajducks had 6 edits before contributing to this AfD, the first of which was last month. ---CrunchySkies (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this a replacement for a counter argument? I don't see the point of mentioning that. I have a lot more edits attributed to my IP, and I only recently created an account. Does that make my argument any less valid? Ajducks (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not confronting your argument at all, but merely making your apparent lack of contributions visible to the closing admin. Whatever conclusions they draw or don't draw from that aren't my business. Of course it doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument being made from your account, but perhaps affects the qualifications for making such an argument. Having almost no contributions is a fair point of note in a deletion discussion; if no one cared about this, it would be easier for people to create endless sockpuppets and sway results in their favor (I am not accusing you of this, but this is an example of one reason such points are important.) You didn't cast this !vote from your IP full of edits, so I'm not concerned with those... the sole contributions from your username, from which you are participating here, consist of blanking sections out of a single article. →CrunchySkies ❅ _{« talk ± gawk »} 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine, I realised after I replied that was probably why you commented on that. Ajducks (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't compare this list to the list of presidents, but rather would compare it to articles such as List of people from Kansas. This is by no means the "only list article on Wikipedia" like this. It is easy to tell if the names are notable by simply seeing if they have their own Wikipedia article which if they do establishes their notability.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It's true that there are more appropriate types of list articles to compare the Ice Bucket list article with. However, an article listing people from a certain country still has a more limited scope than an article which has very relaxed requirements; the challenge itself takes less than a minute to do, but you can't change where you were born (refer to WP:SALAT). I actually think this article could be kept if the topic was more specific, like "List of unique Ice Bucket Challenge participants" (for people who performed the challenge in a different way or in different circumstances) which would address the potentially unlimited range and size of the current article. Either way, the article in it's current form should be changed in some way, to either reduce and address it's size issue or to remove it completely. (also, if establishing people's notability was as easy as checking they had a Wikipedia article, lists such as "List of names that begin with <letter>" would be deemed notable, as said below. As a note, there are articles like List of biblical names starting with A which have a more specific range and list the meanings alongside to the names) Ajducks (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably make a category. Nothing worth keeping by a long shot. RWCasinoKid (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of making this a category instead of a list. --BZTMPS ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, making it a category is a horrendous idea. When placing article X in category Y, we generally require that the article more or less explicitly shows that it indeed belongs to Y. The last thing we need is people going around thousands of articles and adding "X participated in the ice bucket challenge" just to add it to the category. It's a completely useless factoid in most biographies. Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bobherry talk 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why? JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like it's keepable now, but I won't change my !vote because I've put a lot of work into this today. Now that an admin has semi-protected it for a week it'll be easier to keep it well-referenced. I think all of the YouTube and Facebook refs are gone now, and over the next few days I'll work to make sure that they don't sneak back in there and I'll be removing unsouced additions. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:List_of_notable_Ice_Bucket_Challenge_participants#WP:SELFSOURCE.3F. You need to stop removing references to the official YouTube and Facebook accounts of the person in question. Dream Focus 03:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Ok, I apologize, it just seemed that most people didn't want Facebook or YouTube refs, I personally thought they were ok, but if it meant this wouldn't get deleted, I just went along. My thinking the official accounts were ok to cite were from my common sense, I actually hadn't heard of WP:SELFSOURCE. Well, you learn a new thing everyday! :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority that chimed in on this issue on this AfD have said they are against using primary sources, and when this list was part of the main Ice Bucket Challenge article the consensus was that a secondary source was needed for inclusion. I personally agree with AmaryllisGardener's changes.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two references can be given then, one showing the person's activity is notable because it got coverage, and the other shows where they did it at for those who want to see it. Dream Focus 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checking, 90% of the references on this list after you remove the SPS (Youtube/facebook links) are sources that say "Hey, look at this person do it". This is not a source of notability as that is not significant coverage of the event. (Contrast: this is better than average in actually saying a bit about the specific version of the challenge). unless you can trim the list to this small percentage, this still is indiscriminate inclusion. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't change reality. It is not an indiscriminate list. Just because there isn't always a lot of information to write about the person, doesn't make any difference at all. Reliable sources felt it notable enough to mention, so that makes it notable enough to be on a list article. We're not making an individual article page for each person's ice bucket event. Dream Focus 06:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An indiscriminate list can be one where there is an inclusion metric but it is so diffuse that the resulting list remains unmanageable. For example, "List of people with "a" in their names". This is a case where because the act of participating is so simple and the sourcing requirements extremely weak, that the resulting list is also unmanageable and thus indiscriminate, akin to listing all people who have Twitter accounts. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list *is* manageable, just look at the article. Simply being large does not make something unmanageable, and being unmanageable is not related to being indiscriminate. If an article can be fixed through normal editing then it is not a candidate for deletion.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the list is limited to notable individuals only thus not indiscriminate; entries are sourced; list is too long to merge to the main article; better as a "list of" than category because of citations. -- GreenC 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its so obvious, I don't know why there is even a discussion. We're over 500 sources, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to google this stuff. If you don't like a particular source for whatever reason, spend a minute to find a new one and edit it in. The most time consuming part of that is making the edit into such a huge article. This may be a contemporary fad, we expect it to go away, but WP:NTEMP tells us that a passing fad is not temporary for our reporting of it. Clearly, clearly it achieves WP:GNG now and deserves to stay. That said, the article certainly needs cleanup. Lets make it better. I suggest editors might better spend their time and editing skills to help clean it up, rather than spending your time complaining about it. Trackinfo (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quite long list (ie unmergeable), all of bluelinks, in which every entry is referenced? it sounds to me an obvious keep. It just requires cleanup of the items actually sourced just to primary sources. Cavarrone 08:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Break[edit]

NOTE to closing admin: If this is a Delete consensus, I suggest userfying. This at least retains the information for the person(s) who have put a lot of effort into it. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. At the end of the day, this is my biggest concern... not often is an AfD article actively edited so intensely by so many editors. No matter what else happens, this effort should at least be preserved somehow on the project space for posterity... please see to that. If this winds up "Delete", I think the best way to handle it would be either to Userfy the content, or change the article into a protected redirect to Ice Bucket Challenge -- in either event, keeping edit history intact of course. I haven't even worked on the article much, but if no one closer to the situation wants this on their Userspace, I'll volunteer mine. --CrunchySkies (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MERCY, WP:EFFORT, and WP:LOSE aren't very convincing arguments for AFD's as they don't explain the value of keeping an article. If you'd like to retain the information, I suggest storing in sandbox or a word processing document or something. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there will be any consensus to delete. I count about the same number of keeps and deletes at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs are not vote counting processes, it is based on the policy arguments presented. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was aware of that. Except what happens when arguments are evenly stacked? Do you think there is a consensus to delete? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While that should be the case in practice it never is. An admin will either delete or keep this depending on whether they like or dislike the topic, or it will be closed as no-consensus because there is a roughly even "vote".AioftheStorm (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does not fit WP:INDISCRIMINATE and meets WP:FORK as being too big to be merged back into the main article. KonveyorBelt 16:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here expecting half the list to be a huge mess, re-linked and unsourced .... But the entire list is the exact opposite - It's tidyish, Blue linked, and each and every participant listed is sourced, I see no reason to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:SALAT. So many people have done this now that it has ceased to be distinctive; the fact that it can be sourced is immaterial. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have already voted, but I am also in favor of a redirect with history to Ice Bucket Challenge, IFF the article cannot be kept nor merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought it was interesting to have such a list and I contributed to the page but I didn't believe so many people would do it. Now pretty much every celebrity has done it as others pointed out and so there's no merit in being listed anymore and thus the existence of the list itself has become useless. Another website that is not an 'encyclopedia' could start their own list. Also, keeping the most notable people on the main article is a risk because it would certainly incite other users to add new names so if we go for that solution then we'll have to establish strong criteria. --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The zenith of trivial recentism; fairly indiscriminate; I'm not seeing the encyclopedic value. Neutrality^talk 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an indiscriminate list of no encyclopedic value; a year from now the only one anyone will remember is Old Spice Guy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Remember back in '14 when that Old Spice Guy dumped iced water over his head?" 162.254.149.35 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I hadn't even heard that the Old Spice Guy had participated. Either way, it's more about proving the overwhelming critical mass of celebrities participating. This will be studied in fundraising and social media post-secondary courses for years, maybe even by sociology courses. It's less about the list, and more about the scale of the list, to help people understand the scale of the participation. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The number of people, and particularly anyone with celebrity status (including athletes, politicians, etc.) can be documents by sources that mention the estimated partipation size, but you don't need to list out all the celebrities that participated to show that. Social media sources like Twitter and Instagram are important, but that's shown by numbers of big time users, not a list of those users. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's why describing the scale on Ice Bucket Challenge works just fine. Also, Old Spice Guy! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recentism, trivia, no lasting encyclopedic value. The challenge itself, and the people on the list, are all obviously notable, but I don't see how that alone justifies the list's existence. The fact that it's for a good cause isn't a reason to keep it either. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First comment, Merge is simply a non-starter, I've been involved in efforts to break lists out into their own articles that are half this size. Second, in regards to non-notable people being here, this *should* be limited to people who have their own article (not sure on "all members of group have, so include group"). Third, The issue with Primary sources to Youtube is a real one, and a trim down to those with secondary sources might be useful, but even *that* I believe would leave a list more than long enough for an article.Naraht (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - getting to be just as trivial as a list of celebrities who breathe air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.230.169 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, not encyclopedic Sswitcher (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just throwing a fact out there for everyone, 0 of the winners at the 86th Academy Awards are on this list. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor any Wikipedia founders. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Have you checked all of the usual "reliable" sources -- like Jimmy's Facebook, Instagram, MySpace and Twitter pages? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: He's not on this list. Martinevans123 never said that he didn't do it, he just said that he wasn't on this list. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my ironic comment regarding reliable sources. I have now added scare quotes to the word "reliable" in my comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: I see. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- But from the Academy Awards before that, the 85th, Ben Affleck has, Christoph Waltz has, Anne Hathaway has, and Curfew short star Fatima Ptacek has. Winners from that year challenged by other celebrities include Quentin Taratino, George Clooney, Ang Lee, and Daniel Day-Lewis. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough celebrities have taken the Ice Bucket Challenge at this point that the list is far too long and indiscriminate, and taking the Ice Bucket Challenge isn't a special or exclusive criterion for a list in itself given its popularity. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate listcruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki has already been deleted. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't Like It but I'm OK with other people looking at it. Lots seem to like it. Keep, I guess. But delete after the hoopla dies down. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Notability is not temporary. It's either notable or not notable. There is no "notable now but not notable later". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this. I'm not saying it's notable now, just that deleting it now would piss people off. Once it isn't cool anymore, they won't mind. The illusion of notability is temporary. There's less harm in leaving a poor article up for a while. It's not exactly slanderous or anything, just a bit stupid. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This actually makes perfect sense to me. If there's no consensus to delete now, it might be worth revisiting the issue in six months or a year. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Retain this. Ali Fazal (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alifazal: Want to give a reason? AfD is not a vote. I suggest you read this. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the list is referenced and the challenge itself is notable, we could make millions of lists of things that a very large number of people have done. For example, someone could create List of people that have visited the United States – this could be extremely well referenced and the subject (Tourism in the United States) is also notable. However, the list is utterly pointless and trivial. Number 5 7 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial list. It provides very little information that a category would not. Chillum 15:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three and a Quarter[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Unref article on living people after more than 8 years - no Portuguese language article. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the article's talk page. G. C. Hood (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 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 01:28, 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 redirect to Hero (2014 film). → Call me Hahc21 02:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Pancholi[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Just one unreleased film and being assistant director for another one are not enough for notability. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The subject has been in news recently for his association with Ziah Khan who committed suicide and is the son of a notable Bollywood actor but all doesn't show that he is notable enough to have his own article.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ...He is making his career debut with 2014 film..., must say WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his film Hero (2014 film), has significant coverage in reliable sources, but there is not enough content for an article. Chander For You 17:24, 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 22:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanderforyou:The film will release in December and the reason he has received media coverage is his alleged involvement in the Ziah Khan suicide case. Redirect won't help in this case.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 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. As failing GNG. → Call me Hahc21 02:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gregory[edit]

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

I see no sign of notability but others might feel the other way around so I'm proposing this article for deletion. Mr RD 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:ATHLETE. Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an NCAA Division I head coach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New NCAA D1 head coach. BradTollefson (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Head coach of NCAA should be enough. AAA3AAA (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we have precedent of keeping NCAA head coaches? From WP:NCOLLATH, it says that coaches are notable if they have won an award/established a record, are in a Hall of Fame, or gained national media attention. Natg 19 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being a head coach is not enough to show notability. Coverage is the routine hiring stuff you always see. Fails WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH, which also applies to coaches. Also fails WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Johnston-Aldworth[edit]

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

Article about screen and textile printer, who professes to be a entrepreneur, but fails WP:BIO. No notability whatsoever. scope_creep talk 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The article is about a person who is notable for her environmental stewardship and recognition thereof by the Region of Waterloo consistently over the years. It meets all general notability and is not listed in any of the categories listed in the deletion claim. Article Creator. DivaWord (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Canadian businesswoman and environmental spokesperson with multiple in-depth independent reliable sources such as this one and being on the cover and featured in this business magazine, plus numerous awards for environmental action such as special recognition from the government of Ontario. That said, the previous article was too long, with undue emphasis on spurious details, but the article has been shortened.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Tomwsulcer and DivaWord. The article at [[44]] is a blog and is not under editorial control, so facts have not been checked, so not notable. The Print Queen page at Waterloo Chronicle doesn't have a reporter attribution, which means it's an advertising skit. It reads like a skit. The http://www.exchangemagazine.com magazine is a business advertising magazine to advertize the business. I've used the exact same methodology for my own business in the past. She is not notable.

Disagree, she is notable, and the sources are all reliable. The Grand River Conservation Authority has a wiki-article, has been around for 75 years with a large staff and its magazine publishes various writers and has an editor named Liz Leedham (see bottom of page); it is accountable to various publics as well as the government of Ontario; it is an acceptable source. The the Waterloo Chronicle article was most likely written by a staff writer or reporter; many newspapers do not give bylines (eg The Economist) it is a reliable source, and there is no requirement in Wikipedia that such articles must have bylines. Graphic Exchange Magazine is a prominent Canadian publication geared to graphic arts and related businesses, at one point having a print circulation of 18,000, now it appears in an online format; I see no indication why writer Jon Rohr would make anything up, or reprint a PR or advertising piece, or masquerade an advertisement as a magazine article, because his magazine is accountable to paid online subscribers who want good information not PR fluff. Rohr felt Tracey Johnston-Aldworth was notable enough to put her face on his magazine's cover and write an in-depth independent nontrivial article about her. These are acceptable sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:45, 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 05:50, 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 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heo Youngji[edit]

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

The person is not notable yet as a singer. She might be notable in the future. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666
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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kara (band), not independently notable, no significant separate coverage from the band. --Bejnar (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 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 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe she is able to meet large fan base criterion WP:ENTERTAINER under might be notable.Cocoma (talk) 12:19, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Centre[edit]

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

Is this shopping center notable? Based on a merger proposal here, it seems to be non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close This is articles for deletion, not articles for merger. This is a matter for the talk pages and WP:Editing policy, not WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I would like to delete the article. I was citing a comment made in the merge proposal as a reason for its non-notability. Natg 19 (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable shopping centre. No real coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added several sources, a sampling of the news and journal coverage. I think there's enough coverage (mainly of redevelopment plans) to meet WP:GNG. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boban Čabarkapa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on the mistaken claim that the Montenegrin First League is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had removed the PROD tag as the player has played in the Montenegrin First League [45] which according to WP:FPL is a fully-pro league. If there are any sources to support the First League as not being fully-pro, the WP:FPL list should be updated. Otherwise, the article should be kept. LRD NO (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Montenegrin First League is listed and sourced in the Top level leagues which are not fully professional section at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. Further to any consideration is that WP:FOOTYN states that All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable, which the First League is. LRD NO (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the leagues themselves not the players playing in them. In fact, WP:FOOTYN explicitly says it no longer applies to players. The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I'm having a mare here. Teach me for editing under lack of sleep. LRD NO (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree the two appearance claim is misleading as he was an unused substitute on both occasions. An example of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've Been Asking Questions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, never been recorded as it stands I don't believe that this song is notable Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 13:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by the article's own admission it fails WP:NSONG. The lack of significant coverage means it fails WP:GNG. It is not even currently mentioned in the John Phillips (musician) article, and arguably it is so trivial as to be beneath mention there. --Bejnar (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Shakti Party[edit]

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

Not able to find any noteworthy stuff about the party. It was formed. But doesn't seem like it won or even contested any elections, national or state level or municipal level.
Note: Its not to be confused with Bharatiya Janshakti Party and Lok Janshakti Party which turn up in multiple web search results of the term "Jan Shakti Party". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article referenced from self published sources expect the one from theindianpress.com but still it lacks significant coverage and fails WP:V. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 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 01:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Preetikapoor0 (talk) 01:55, 27 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harshita Gaur[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. also reads more like a fansite than a encyclopedic article --Mdann52talk to me! 09:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view this article can be improved and made more encyclopedic.This is a short article and it is very early to regard this article as fansite. Harshita Gaur is a notable TV Actor in India.--Param Mudgal (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Fails WP:ENT. She has acted in a few television serials and has played a supporting character in a film. But this is not enough to establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 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 01:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete run of the mill actor with no particular significance established or even claimed. perhaps its just WP:TOOSOON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete- too soon, not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:34, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Turner (garden designer)[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 09:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 09:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I scoured the internet and it's no longer unreferenced, but other than one book review and one gardening column referring to another of his books, couldn't find anything independent. It's possible that there are more book reviews that I can't see, but the coverage does not appear to rise to the level we require to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books are sufficiently impt as shown by the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 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 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Lo Russo[edit]

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

Upgrading from unref-BLP prod to failure of WP:N (primary self-published refs only) AfD. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 09:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 09:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 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 00:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bates (actor)[edit]

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

He doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG (not to be confused with another writer/actor of the same name). As far as I can determine, his biggest role was in Coming to America, and that one would be very borderline as far as significance is concerned. The article even admits "he is known for minor roles" in some admittedly big-budget films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 09:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Samet[edit]

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

Not convinced this meets WP:ANYBIO. (I recently ran Reflinks on this and removed an "unreferenced BLP" tag from it. Just want to be sure.) Laun chba ller 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to pass notability guideline due to lack of reliably sourced independent coverage. Does not qualify as a notable composer or musician. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 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 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Philg88, this person lacks secondary sources and notable news coverage. All of the references currently being used are his organizations' websites, which is also insufficient. Upjav (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the others said, this does not appear to meet GNG, because though the sources may exist, they are not independent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YuuWaa[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertisement and has had said flag since 2012; service is no longer available (suspended indefinitely), and does not appear to be notable. -akoimeexx ^«talk» 18:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject[ Deletion sorting/Internet|list of Internet-related deletion discussions]]. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Appears to be significant coverage in The Inquirer, Engadget, PC Advisor and geek.com. Despite the service being halted, I think the historical coverage meets WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 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 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't contain any valid reason to delete. The fact that the article is written like an advertorial is not a reason to delete - it's a reason to rewrite it. The fact that the service/company no longer operates/exists is irrelevant, WP has thousands of articles about things, places, people, orgs, etc. that no longer exist. The cited sources are sufficient to pass GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Changing to Delete per Carrite and Kudpung - the RS media coverage is not sufficient to pass the Notability gate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't see the set of product reviews offered by Lesser Cartographies above as being sufficient to meet GNG. I am seeing notices that YuuWaa is no more but not a lot counting towards GNG in a quick spin around the internets. I suspect that deletion for failing to meet GNG, not being the subject of multiple, substantial, independently published pieces of coverage about the topic, would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the majority of the links supplied as references are routine product reviews while several others are dead sites already. No, this does not meet GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egor Azarkevich[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources significantly discussing this musical artist. Google search brings up basically the same type of references as found in the article -- i.e., entries in music directories and song retailers. The Cyrillic Google search is pretty much the same thing, but includes many articles referencing the Bolshoi Ballet, which is not relevant here. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, references seem to be all self published, non-charted music.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 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 00:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No number of relisting will fix nonnotability. 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 08:32, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Peck Day Hospital[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - Well, Googling news articles on the hospital brings up a link to the Manchester newspaper 90 miles away that the hospital's president was retiring, so it's not merely of Lebanon interest. I know that notability-establishers don't encourage comparing with other articles, but consider that no other New Hampshire hospital has had its article rejected for non-notability. The one thing I can think of that would make this article unneeded would be if it merged with Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, a possibility that is mentioned on APD's website. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a very large number of hospital stubs per state. It isn't clear to me what value these have in Wikipedia. If no one is moving them from stub to full article status, they will just fester here forever. If the purpose is to create a directory of hospitals, then WP isn't the place for that. However, if one votes delete on this one, then in a sense the entire group of articles should be reviewed and given the same judgment. Is it possible to make categorical deletion decisions for stubs? LaMona (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:LaMona, my understanding is that hospitals need to each be judged on their individual merits, whether they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. They have a Wikiproject (WP:WikiProject Hospitals). However, a review of those within this category could be suggested at WP:Wikiproject Notability (which is swamped with a more than six year backlog and not many interested editors) or could be reviewed by an individual. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - User talk:Boleyn Yes, agreed that they would have to be looked at. I found the List_of_hospitals_in_the_United_States, and I think this could be the "culprit" - under each state the hospitals listed are linked as WP articles (mostly non-existent). (see: List_of_hospitals_in_Massachusetts) This encourages the creation of pages for them if one wants to add any further information. Some states have a list with addresses, others are just WP links. Handling these individually, such as the one we are discussing here, isn't going to have an effect on what I see as the overall issue. It does seem that for the US, various government sites, e.g. Healthcare.gov, have hospital lists. So I begin to wonder what need this list is serving, since the key information (location, contact, availability) is often not included. (It would also be hard to keep it up to date, I presume.) -- Also, I looked at WP:Wikiproject Notability and it seems to have a large overlap with WP:AfD, as this latter generally addresses notability. Maybe that's why it isn't active -- the work is being done here. LaMona (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The equivalent list with red links that is relevant here would be List_of_hospitals_in_New_Hampshire. The value of such lists seems to me to be mostly in their wiki-links, and as such, deleting articles like this would significantly defeat the point of such lists. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 13:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the reasons for keeping stated above, I would also like to add that the recent changes to the American health care system, including those that were part of Obamacare, have elevated the importance of even small hospitals (like this one) in American life. Specifically, here in New Hampshire, we had this issue of some insurance providers only having "narrow networks" with select hospitals for their plans that they were going to offer on the exchanges, and I'm pretty the newspapers here must have at some point listed all the hospitals in New Hampshire (including this one) to show one way or the other whether they were part of these networks (can't find the link right now though)... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 20 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 00:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, no independent coverage that I am able to find. On the other hand, the Transparency Index may meet the WP:GNG, and might merit a page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the deletion of this wikipedia page. - Jason Lee

Keep. The Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute is a research company on sovereign wealth funds. It is sourced in over 150 academic journals and is frequently in the media. Not sure why this was submitted for deletion as this page has been up for quite some time. In fact, data in Wikipedia is sourced from the SWFI. The person who submitted the deletion, clearly did not do their homework or do any proper research on the sovereign wealth fund institute. - Jasonlee723 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC) - Jason Lee[reply]
Comment - Footnote 7 does indicate that a Wall Street Journal reporter was using SWFI as an expert source of information on Sovereign Wealth Funds, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And HERE is The Economist siting the think tank Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute as an expert source of information. Reading the tea leaves, this appears to be a notable organization... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 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 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modernize History[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 11:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not many films here from Myanmar. I will hope Burmese-reading Wikipedians come forward to offer sources for this film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 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 00:43, 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 redirect to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

Undiscussed WP:MAF of Syrian Civil War#Belligerents and List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War without a single reference and was obviously copy/pasted from the mentioned articles. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fork of the above listed articles, but doesn't add anything. Frmorrison (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. This page is a mess. It actually copies material that does not pertain to its stated topic, it doesn't add anything not already covered in the existing articles, and the "must be split away from its base page" opinion stated in its first paragraph is ridiculous. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of the article's current condition and contents (it IS badly written), I think this article could be very useful if worked on and so should be kept. It is not OR or synthesis. Nor is it a fork of a single article - there are multiple articles dealing with the Syrian Civil War. A great deal of the discussion that goes on in those articles is about who and what are, or are not, the belligerents. So the topic is certainly notable and to have an article that summarises all the content for diverse articles would be useful, and could relieve pressure on other articles that are becoming overly long. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not necessarily a fork, even if currently written as such. It can cover a sub-topic of "Syrian civil war;" the other article mentioned above is a list, which of necessity does not contain much information about each item in it. Ergo, detailed information about each belligerent may fall through the cracks if this article does not exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fork and was copied word by word from the belligerents section of the main article, apparently without any discussion. The way it stands is very misleading, and the least we can do is to merge it with List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. But the same content has to be removed from the Syrian Civil War article as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:05, 27 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 00:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with (if this article has any unique content) or redirect to (if this page doesn't have any unique content) List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Have the smallest amount of this content necessary at Syrian Civil War. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; duplicates the article mentioned above (WP:CFORK). Sandstein 08:07, 30 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. And furthermore, I hereby nominate the By number of wins table for the Edward Tufte special award for Data presentation abuse above and beyond the call of duty. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has existed for some time without any references. A small number of references were found at the previous AfD, but these have approaching zero coverage of the event series as they are 'local girl made good stories' rather than indepth coverage. Not eligible for PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - I'm not convinced that this pageant is absolutely notable. However, I have to observe that if it IS deleted then there will be significant fallout - this article has a lot of roots stretching out as shown in its templates: Template:Miss Supranational, and the winners at Template:MissSupranationals will be on shaky ground, except probably Mutya Johanna Datul. The only other significant winner page, Karina Pinilla, shows she only won this one. A lot of the links in Template:MissSupranationalCountries are debatably not official Supranational deciders. Essentially, I don't care for these tits and teeth articles, but I'm trying to be even handed here - and I'm sorry, I don't see compelling evidence of notability. Just getting in my two cents before this discussion inevitably disintegrates...but hey ho... at least there'll be an eventual decision either way at the end of the tunnel. Mabalu (talk) 11:22, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 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 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow. I can't believe the lack of interest in this AFD. I was expecting drama and chaos of every description but it looks like nobody really cares about this pageant - which is pretty remarkable given that its deletion would effectively invalidate and wipe out at least three templates, several winner bios, and all the offshoots I mentioned above. I would have to say that even though I wouldn't cry if this was deleted, I think something with so many roots and offshoots really needs more discussion than has been seen in this AFD. It's not just an isolated or standalone page. Mabalu (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss what? Never heard of. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:17, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IspCP[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage about this software to establish notability. The article itself is unreferenced. Whpq (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A web search turns up blogs, howtos, download pages and actually a few pages generated by this software, but no significant coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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 00:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Concur with Qwertyus. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability; a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shizzi[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the subject has received little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. He only received significant coverage during the time of the Don Jazzy/Wande Coal feud. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject however has been nominated for two notable awards in his country, and happens to meet WP:ANYBIO. I don't believe the ANYBIO criteria is enough to warrant a stand alone article. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This artist is notable because he meets two requirements of WP:ANYBIO. 1.) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. WP:MUSICBIO 2.) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Nigeria Entertainment Awards and The Headies award.--Nicholas Nde (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Nicholas Nde is a sock puppet of User:Coal Press Nation. Versace1608 (Talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep: As it stands today, the most popular Nigerian "music only" award ceremony is The Headies (MAMAs, Kora and Channel O are not exclusively Nigerian). Winners of The Headies are mostly chosen based on popularity which makes it to lack some credibility. The Keyword in criteria 8 of WP:MuSICIAN is "major", which could mean excellence, popularity, credibility, etc. It is interesting to note that the guideline does not exclusively define "major" so I don't think we should be adding our interpretation to it. Wikipedia guidelines is just like a Bible, you can not add or subtract to it during a review. Being nominated on 2 different notable award ceremony shows that there is a level of transparency and consistency in his relevance. He does not pass wiki guidelines as a singer but I think he weakly passes as a music producer. I can also add that he has produced songs for many big names in the music industry. Many of the songs he produced even have articles on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: Let's make things clear. Only "Dami Duro", "Skelewu", "Love My Baby", and "Gobe" have Wikipedia pages. 4 is not "many". Shizzi doesn't meet WP:GNG, the basic requirement that every article is required to meet. He also fails WP:MUSICBIO. In past discussions, you were told that The Headies and Nigerian Entertainment awards are not major awards. (They are not on the same level as The Grammys or Juno). Jamie Tubers made it clear to us few days ago. Just because he produced the aforementioned songs doesn't mean he's notable. The songs are notable, not him. Versace1608 (Talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our interpretation of criteria 8 is not relevant here, what matters is what was written in WP:MUSICBIO, it is also stated in WP:MUSICBIO that NOT all notable articles must meet WP:GNG. I agree that it does not meet WP:GNG but it meets WP:MUSICBIO. The Headies and NEA Producer of the Year nomination is NOT a small feat at all. It is also worthy to note that the 4 songs were major hits all over Nigeria in terms of airplay and awards won. Darreg (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO states: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria. May is the keyword in this sentence. May doesn't mean certainty. Although the word "major" is subjective, the eighth criteria makes it clear as to what is considered a "major" award. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. I believe that the "such as" phrase in the previous sentence specifically states the types of awards that are considered "major". Again, this can be argued. In my opinion, the only criteria Shizzi meets is the WP:ANYBIO criteria. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:To tell you the truth, I don't know this producer, but for him to have produced all these major hits(more than one hit), it speaks notability. If he was nominated just once, it would have been a different thing (He was nominated twice for 2 different notable awards). It's just like a movie director that has directed 4 major award winning films, whether or not he passes GNG or not will no longer matter cuz he already passed WP:FILMS. Darreg (talk) 22:15, 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, Wifione ^Message 12:00, 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 00:34, 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 Speedy Keep. Nominator withdrawn.(non-admin closure) ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0 (Low Roar album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Should be deleted, merged or redirected. TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 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 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: English language reviews from Icelandic magazines [46], [47]. That's the only two I found but if any Icelandic sources could be found I think that might push it past WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS per the two sources listed above by User:BethNaught. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this nomination per the sourced found by BethNaught. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:09, 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. → Call me Hahc21 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Coyote[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AlvinMarplesJr (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reading through the article itself, this band is not nationally notable nor did it create much of an impact, and is now defunct. - Gccwang (talk) 17:08, 16 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 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Virtually all of the source links are broken, and nothing seems to indicate that they were notable. - AlvinMarplesJr (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (EDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.46.218 (talk)

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