Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 August	23 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Fee[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. The sources cited are thin and either self-published, or barely make reference to this person. He's a staff writer for a non-notable producer. There's a link to his Twitter account, with over 700 links; not sure if this is "notoriety" in the Wiki sense. The article mentioned that his stand-up comedy album "debuted at #1 on the iTunes comedy charts", but I deleted it because the reference cited did not support this, and I was not able to confirm this after searching. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails. Most of the references are to things he wrote: blog posts, etc. There is simply no notability here. LaMona (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS Found an album review here http://www.comedy-reviews.com/2012/02/rob-fee-stomp.html

WP:CREATIVE An interview with a newspaper about a few of the things cited here http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/10/09/ellen-and-oklahoma-an-interview-with-rob-fee/

WP:CREATIVE An interview with ABC News here http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2012/11/how-low-will-guys-go-for-a-date-man-posts-fake-womans-profile-online-to-find-out/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightryder88 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: zero indication that the subject meets the notability threshold. Also, the only real sources are articles that he has written. And a search in Google News turns up nothing at all. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough yet. Gccwang (talk) 17:21, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading video[edit]

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

1. It is synthesis [1]. None of the sources treat "Beheading video" as a subject in itself, different from "Grey roof" or "Sitting dog." The references are merely media coverage of beheadings that involved videos. 2. It's pretty insensitive, to the point of being a BLP violation, since BLP covers deaths that are very recent and controversial or murders. How would you feel to have a loved one being listed for something like this a week afterwards? Howunusual (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Virtually the entire text is unsupported by the cited sources:

"A beheading video is a type of video released by Islamist militant groups depicting interviews by hostages taken by said groups." None of the sources define the subject this way. And why would it be restricted to "Islamist...groups" by definition?
"The prelude to these videos usually shows the subject alive and pleading for their lives sometimes accompanied by their captors, sometimes not." None of the sources say that.
" The demands made are usually broad and general, such as total withdrawal of the hostage's nation's military forces from a particular Middle Eastern country, usually Iraq." None of the sources say that.
"Invariably, a video depicting the actual beheading is released a few days later." None of the sources say this. Howunusual (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to exist mainly to stereotype Islam. In addition to defining the subject as "Islamist", it was placed in the (very loaded) category "Islamism-related beheadings" [2] as well as "War crimes committed by Islamist militant groups" (do most Muslims accept these acts as part of islam, and have most of the perpetrators been convicted of war crimes?). Howunusual (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination fixed + reformatted mol uɐɯ 22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep the third reference[3] specifically talks about beheading videos used as a tactic in war and terrorism. This [4] also mentions a recent beheading video as a subject. [5] talks about the issue as a form of propaganda. Like it or not, it is a phenomenon of the modern world, a bit like Gibbet cages from antiquity. wrt. BLP, yes it does apply, so we have to be careful, and fix the article if need be. Martin451 00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you're getting that. The first source you mention discusses the idea a bit, but not much. It is mostly about one particular killing. The others don't discuss "Beheading video" as a general, notable topic in its own right at all. Howunusual (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources NinjaRobotPirate provides below establish notability as a subject. The first highbeam source specifically mentions beheading videos as a form of propaganda. The original nytimes article is here[6]. The third highbeam here [7] talks about the impact of the videos. Martin451 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Howunusual, as not a general notable topic. But this is just a vote-tally process. The previous AFD was voted keep based simply on the numbers, and very evidently regardless of the strength (or otherwise) of the arguments on either side. If enough users pile on with unsupported/weakly argued demands for it to be kept, it will be voted keep, and vice versa. Writegeist (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia users cannot abuse their power to censor information on acts of terrorism. I can't believe someone who supports the existence of Wikipedia would even suggest mass deletions of information on the violent terrorist attacks of our time. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Wikipedia is not here to provide a soapbox or platform. It's an encyclopedia. That means that we decide these issues with regards to notability, not emotional appeals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My first thought was that it wouldn't be notable, but I have found many sources that discuss the topic: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I can summarize the subscription links for people without an account on Highbeam Research, but they are definitely relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last source you give about facebook created a fair amount of notable news at the time, the BBC covered it [14][15] with comments from the British PM. Martin451 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that story is about Facebook, not the subject of this article. Facebook probably has a policy on breastfeeding videos too, that does't justify an article on breastfeeding videos. Howunusual (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ...I'm starting to see Writegeist's point. Another of those sources is an op-ed about terrorist use of the Internet generally, not this subject. It can't be used as a source for anything except the op=ed writer's opinion. As for "distasteful"--that's not a reason given for the deletion. Oh well. As it stands, almost all of the body of the article can be deleted as unsourced... Howunusual (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bleakfire. Wikipedia shouldn't censor this stuff just because it's distasteful. --Nick012000 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)— Nick012000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep passes WP:N after good work by NinjaRobotPirate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, sources support claims in article. NinjaRobotPirate's recent rewrite helps, too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only on basis of frequency. There are many more "Grey roofs" and "sitting dogs" than there are "beheading videos". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N thanks to NinjaRobotPirate's huge improvements (Thanks NinjaRobotPirate!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject, article sourced, and it is a topic per se. Passes WP:GNG well.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:13, 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) czar ♔ 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmaram[edit]

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

This probably qualifies for speedy deletion, since it purports to be a disambiguation page with only one entry. However, it has been around for four and a half years, and I am loathe to speedy something that might be better handled through cleanup. As I'm not sure what the best course of action should be, please consider this an article for discussion, as opposed to deletion, per se. LadyofShalott 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep User:LadyofShalott, please look over the page as it is and consider withdrawing nomination. I looked at 'What links here' and resolved incoming links, which gave it two more entries, plus, as there are lots of partial matches, added {intitle} to see also. Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Let me see if I can get at least a stub to turn that Karimnagar Province redlink blue first. LadyofShalott 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eihter way, it's three valid entries, as the redlink meets MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems fine now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nom misunderstands deletion process. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 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. Sandstein 12:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deni Boneštaj[edit]

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

No article in another language to help find sources to support WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badel, Somalia[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation years ago (despite tagging). – S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reference for the attack and I think that is enough for WP:GEOLAND. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will do a speedy keep on this article and close a bit later today. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jacks (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he was third billed after Renée Zellweger and Matthew McConaughey, as Leatherface the major bad guy, albeit before the other actors gained their stardom. That might be enough for notability, even if he never made another film in his life. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:47, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Delete No references, little content. He is listed on the Texas_Chainsaw_Massacre:_The_Next_Generation page, so this can be redirected to that. LaMona (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation since that's what he's probably most known for .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aug (band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BAND— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickGibson3900 (talk • contribs) 19:31, August 8, 2014‎
Weak keep. Coverage is perhaps sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BAND criterion 1: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was just about to say delete because there's so much noise in the Google search, but Michig did a great job of uncovering some good sources. They're not tremendous sources, but they're enough for me to say keep. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:09, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Barraza[edit]

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

Curriculum vitae for non-notable tv director. damiens.rf 16:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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, czar ♔ 19:47, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much more in the Spanish language WP, so it is unlikely that this person has made the "crossover". The Spanish article seems sufficient to his renown. LaMona (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:56, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Front[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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, czar ♔ 19:59, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlath Conroy[edit]

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

non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 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, czar ♔ 20:34, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more notable than most actors!PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:28, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Henry[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 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, czar ♔ 20:41, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although never a star, he did appear in some interesting films. I did some searching but there is nothing more to be said about him; I could find no notable references. He will continue to be listed in the various movie databases, which is appropriate. LaMona (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably had an interesting career, but I don't see how he could meet WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I don't think we have anything more to help this subject meet WP:GNG here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I found that Hank Henry appeared in a sketch alongside Bela Lugosi. Since this review shows the Silver Slipper comedian is the right Hank Henry, there should be sources about his Silver Slipper career including Daily Reporter. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Subject was a stage comedian who appeared in burlesque (at Minsky's) with many of the art's greatest stars. Robert Alda was his straight man/partner. Henry appeared on numerous Las Vegas stages for many years, one United Press feature calling him a "Las Vegas Fixture". One widely reprinted Erskine Johnson column appears in October 1957: Comedian Hank Henry Finds Rainbow's End in Las Vegas. It appears his stage career ran for five decades. The above clippings may be from local newspapers, but syndicated into dozens if not hundreds of publications nationwide. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to what's noted above, I'm finding several articles about him over the years in Variety, including Bill Willard (April 8, 1981). "Comedian Hank Henry Dies At 74", Variety 302 (10): 72. It notes he was known mainly for his stage work, but he was also a veep of the Screen Actors Guild Nevada branch, and, having been noticed by Irving Berlin, he had a significant comedic role in This Is the Army. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above; there appear to be enough sources to satisfy GNG. Not my area of expertise, but the sources seem acceptable, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:10, 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. Deor (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Turks[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:EVENT, no evidence of long term ratifications or impacts on society Redsky89 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Run of the mill crime that did not lead to any protests, calls for reform, etc. like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or Sean Bell. It was really the other two killings in the 1980s that led to racial tensions in the city. The trial of the suspects was not extensively covered either and all have since been released from prison and disappeared into thin air. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:41, 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, Wifione ^Message 18:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vile and tragic, but didn't really have much long lasting impact. Perhaps worth a brief mention in Hate crime laws in the United States as an example of why such laws were implemented. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balconing[edit]

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

Non-notable fad. Edison (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic. Source examples: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic. There are Wiki pages for this entry in English, Spanish, Italian and German. It should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.157.215 (talk)

Keep - Could use some TLC though. I can also think of a handful of examples to expand the pop culture section right off the top of my head. mol uɐɯ 21:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources from NorthAmerica1000, they establish notability. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 22:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Northamerica1000.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sievers[edit]

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

Long standing BLP article with poor references, passed to AfD from BLPPROD. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a page that is unambiguously designed to (a) promote the subject of the article and (b) support the subject's world view. Examples are:

'he established a reputation for innovative and effective methods in drug investigations, intelligence probes and community policing'
'From this platform he campaigned strongly on industrial issues affecting police including peacekeeping veterans, community safety and the failure of the Australia's to heed warning on the coming violence in East Timor. He appeared on national media in this role, and soon became the subject of an allegedly politically motivated campaign to discredit him and force him from the Australian Federal Police.'
'He passed these on to the United Nations and to the Australian Government, but became deeply concerned when it was apparent these warnings were being ignored.'

Really, I wouldn't object at all to a G11 speedy deletion. Now, this is not to say that the subject isn't notable. I suspect he probably would meet the GNG based on coverage in reliable sources (eg [27]). And if someone wants to fix the article in the coming week, great -- ignore my !vote if that's done. But otherwise, we can, and should, delete pages that are unambiguously promotional and that have no safe version in their history to revert to. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly suggests the potential to pass WP:GNG if the appropriate volume of reliable sourcing were present to support it, but the above assessment is correct that there are significant POV/promotional overtones here. The closest thing to "sourcing", further, is a contextless linkfarm of external links to video interviews with Sievers — but it's a core precept of GNG that interviews with the subject don't confer notability by themselves. They'd be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough third-party sourcing, in which other people were writing or speaking about him, had been added to cover off the basic notability, but sources in which the subject is talking about himself cannot confer notability if they're the only sources present. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE — no prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly sourced and neutral version can be created. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is promotional. AlanS (talk) 06:16, 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Environmental Directory[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I nominated it for AfD earlier this year - it received a comment from only one user. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved, and it would be good to resolve this, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing in the article or via searches that shows Notability. Stesmo (talk) 01:14, 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Bingley[edit]

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

Non-notable academic; prod was disputed. Notability claim is " His work was cited or mentioned in books,[2] scholarly articles[3] and on the UK National Archives web site,"; this does not address WP:PROF or WP:BIO notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references in the current article are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC, nor can I find any evidence he meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Qwfp (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a very nice person, but passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Isn't notable and only known locally. (Thurrock Gazette) Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN local historian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread / misunderstood the notability criteria. I have copied the article to my user space in case his notability becomes established when his obituaries are published. Meanwhile, this discussion could be closed. Sorry to take up people's time. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:22, 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. Sandstein 12:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gastaurant[edit]

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

Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding multiple articles on restaurants in gas stations (see [28][29][30][31]). But I'm not finding coverage of the specific neologism "gastaurant." Perhaps the article content should be merged into filling station? Altamel (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to truck stop under the alternate definition of "travel center", which is a more appropriate name for this concept. Nate • (chatter) 00:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any notice taken either. At best, it's a neologism that never took off, at worst, a dictionary definition. Neither merits an article or a redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dictionary definition with filler tidbit trivia. mol uɐɯ 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Weber[edit]

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

Uncredited actress in films and TV, only sources are IMDB profile and extra's own website - fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose account AdventurousMe (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 04:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although she may not meet WP:GNG as an actress, she sure does as a model. Almost every men magazine has an article about her. It's true that her article in Wikipedia is of a low quality and focuses on her acting career. The article should be more focused on her modeling career. The filmography section can stay because it is based on IMDB, and IMDB is taken as a reliable source for citing filmographies. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the IMDB profile is user-generated, by a single purpose account. The only item on the IMDB filmography is a film called Android Love, which appears to have been shown only at festivals: all her other roles appear to be uncredited. I think if the article is to stay it needs to be resourced to focus on her notability and achievements as a model - I'm not sure what the criteria are for notability as a glamour model - at the moment, it's a puff piece for a background artist / extra, and wildly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The filmography and TV-ography should be lost, unless there are reliable sources attesting to her uncredited roles. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the reconstruction of the article. I removed the old text and replaced it with new information based on several sources, some of which are notable men magazines. Please have a look and reconsider your deletion proposal. --Λeternus ^(talk) 11:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice start, User:Aeternus. I'd suggest you verify whether any of these "guest appearances" were credited or as herself (or whether she was just an extra/background artist), and try and keep it to the stronger sources - I'd also like to see more on her career as a model, which I think is where her notability lies. But, yes, definitely looking a lot less deletable now. 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Aeternus' edits have established that she's notable as a model. Dismas|^(talk) 02:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-it should mention that those are all uncredited also-otherwise it makes it sound like she had these major roles in those films (which I don't remember that actress in that is what tons of people would say). Wgolf (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:00, 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 merge to Naples Metro. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line 9 (Naples Metro)[edit]

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

Abandoned plan for a non-existing metro line. Not notable. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Naples Metro under History. One line like "A new metro line, named Line 9, was once planned, but later abandoned" would suffice IMO. 野郎院ひさし _{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 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 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seconding 野郎院ひさし's excellent suggestion - one sentence will do it. 50.1.85.108 (talk) 00:56, 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: World record holders are not inherently notable and the consensus seems to be that this one is not notable. No real indication of which body is claiming this is a record. Chillum 01:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highfield Colantha Mooie[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Is a world record holder, but it's a cow and no particularly extensive coverage. I could find no decent target for redirect/merge. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. World record holders are inherently notable as long as the record isn't completely absurd. The record for milk production appears to been of practical importance. The level of coverage is acceptable. Included, in particular, in a book of American epitaphs published several decades after the death of the animal in 1937. I don't see what we stand to gain from deleting this article. James500 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am of the view that this topic does satisfy GNG, which says nothing about "widespread" or "particularly extensive" coverage, whatever that means. GNG refers to multiple sources, meaning two, and we have more than that here. James500 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World Record holders are not inherently notable. We need widespread coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but ... how about merging and redirecting this article to Holstein Friesian cattle#Famous Holsteins? I don't think that anyone could argue that that would be excessive. James500 (talk) 12:01, 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 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moo-ve and redirect per James500. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such official World Record exists, it just hooey made up for publicity, pure nonsense Unibond (talk) 21:56, 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 23:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link ElectroSystems[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Almost-WP:SPA creator has not established its notability, and this has been tagged for notability for over six years without anyone establishing it, so it's time it had a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a link to this discussion on the WP:Automobiles and WP:MOTORSPORT talk pages to see if there is any comment.NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company and product is somewhat well known within a small community of amateur and semi-pro racers and enthusiasts, but it's a very small company and is in no way notable. -Drdisque (talk) 21:05, 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 15:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. No sign of multiple, non-trivial mentions by independent sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:05, 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 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens (U2 album)[edit]

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

No album by this name has been announced by U2. Article is purely speculative and does not include any references to prove this album's existence. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There apparently is an album coming out, and the name Sirens was tweeted but according to one online source [32] "Some over at U2Valencia.com and other places speculate that the title Sirens is really the name of the first single and not the album name. We are left to wonder because the original @UMusicColombia tweet is now deleted, and gone." It is listed under "rumors" on this fan site. So this is premature -- and when first released it would be best for this to go to U2 discography until there are enough resources to warrant an article of its own. LaMona (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Fails WP:V and borderline hoax too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as a hoax, unconfirmed until an official and reliable source states the actual album name. ///EuroCarGT 03:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:36, 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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1 by Starblind (talk) JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essl security[edit]

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

Reason Arunessl (talk) 12:34, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:51, 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 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Math symbol e (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I propose this article be deleted and redirected to E (disambiguation)#Mathematics and logic according to WP:CFORK. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E (disambiguation). I don't see the value in having two disambiguation pages for e. (But don't redirect to the suggested section; this page has physics and engineering uses as well.) Actually, on second though, let's just delete this page. Nothing links to it and I don't really see what should. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [33] seems relevent, lets hang on and see whats up. Martin451 23:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear case of incomplete disambiguation. (This is a disambiguation, not a set index article, because it's centered around unrelated topics with the same name rather than topics whose name similarities are a consequence of their relatedness.) If this had any chance of being used, a redirect would be appropriate, but who's going to link to this name? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomplete disambiguation and no need for redirect as an extremely unlikely search string. older ≠ wiser 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move out of main namespace to e.g. Wikipedia for now until it is clear what is going to happen with this. See bugzilla:69424 for some background information. An interesting project, in my opinion, but it is seems premature to put these pages in article space while we do not yet know in what form this will be implemented, if at all. There are about ten similar articles, as listed on [34]. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when that bug is implemented this can be looked at; for now deletion makes sense. If links are added to Math ML symbols they'll initially be redlinks, probably in thousands of articles, which will surely be quickly fixed. But it's putting the cart before the horse to create these now, especially as I'm not convinced that feature will ever be added: even if technically possible automatically adding links in formulae throws up all sort of issues of overlinking, editorial control over links, non-obvious links and styling.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete; we have e (disambiguation) already for disambiguation, while its unlinked, not a likely search term, so unnecessary as a redirect.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:14, 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 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Math symbol cross (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I propose this article be deleted and redirected to Multiplication sign#Uses. It is a fork and covers the same scope. It should be deleted according to WP:CFORK. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – strictly speaking, a disambiguation page is not content, it is a means to find content, hence WP:CFORK does not apply. Just as there can be multiple redirects to the same article, there can be multiple partially overlapping disambiguation pages, so I don't see what the problem is. In addition, the edit that restored the disambiguation page with the summary NB this page has been created for a mediawiki enhancement concerning math hyperlinking (it is intended to be very specific) seems reasonable to me. Boghog (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [35] seems relevant here. Martin451 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiplication sign handles this better but a redirect is not appropriate from this cumbersome and unlikely-to-be-used title. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomplete disambiguation and no need for redirect as an extremely unlikely search string. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and no need for a redirect as unlinked so would be unused and not a plausible search term, just clutter in the search results.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but move to Multiplication sign (disambiguation) (or × (disambiguation) depending on policy for dabs) because × is a redirect to that article. Christian75 (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- but Multiplication sign already includes a disambiguating section; more properly as it's about the symbol it includes a uses section. A separate disambiguation page is just unnecessary duplication.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:51, 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 redirect restored, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 17:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians killed by Israelis[edit]

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

This is intended to be a list of all everyone killed by Israel. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and likely to be biased, I don't think an article like this is a good idea Gbawden (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn - on checking the history I saw that someone had overwritten a redirect. I have deleted the info and redirected the page as before. Gbawden (talk) 12:16, 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 Merge to Aberdare Urban District Council elections. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 09:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdare Urban District Council election, 1902[edit]

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

It's very hard to see how this article meets WP:GNG or WP:EVENT for local elections Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete very local election, where the people involved are nowhere close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Someone really needs to put together WP:NELECTION to get a notability guideline for these things. Aberdare is a small town, if we are covering elections at this level worldwide on a yearly basis, that would be tens of thousands of articles per year. If we are not intending to cover at that level, what makes Welsh elections more special? Does not meet WP:GNG fails WP:NOT Coverage is WP:ROUTINE without any commentaryGaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see what's necessarily wrong with tens of thousands of articles a year--the relevant policy is NOT PAPER. A much better argument is that below a certain level of importance these are much more useful if merged--anyone interested in one, will probably want to see the whole series, and there is rarely much to say besides the statistics. Where I would draw the line is at anything more local than state or province. Perhaps we do need a general discussion on this, instead of scattered articles and afds. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Happy to agree to this. Currently abroad with very limited internet access so will not be able to progress this until the end of August. Thanks. Macs15 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is one of a series of 10 articles and I think that they should all be considered together; there is no merit in blowing a single hole in such a set of pages. I agree that separate pages are not appropriate; apart from anything else there seems not to be the material available to make a fully developed page. However, the content is encyclopaedic and I see no reason to delete it. Though we could merge to the main article it would unbalance the page so merging all 10 to a new Aberdare Urban District Council elections looks a good way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:36, 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG, Macs15 and The Whispering Wind SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with The Whispering Wind, as there is insufficient coverage of the individual elections to merit individual articles a merge to one article makes sense. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 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: This was a difficult case to close. I had to take into account the strength of the policy based arguments made.

The 10 people seeking deletion all have the same policy based theme that the season is not notable and not meeting WP:GNG. Concerns that it is an indiscriminate collection of information were also raised. These are reasonable interpretations of policy and must be given due weight.

Of the 8 people seeking the article to be kept there were a variety of arguments made.

3 argued that the season itself was notable and referred to sources. These arguments must be given full weight.

2 argued that the person was notable. This does not respond to the concerns that others have made that the topic of the season is not notable. Being notable is enough for a biography, but not enough for an article about a season unless the season itself is notable. Some weight but not much can be given to these arguments.

1 only argued it fell under Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_seasons, it does not as this guideline is clearly for teams and not individuals. It is evident that a team season is inherently more notable than an individuals season. Little weight can be given to this.

1 referred to the local consensus at a wikiproject. A local consensus on a Wikiproject is not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This cannot be given weight.

1 said nothing at all other than "Keep". As this is not an argument I cannot give it any weight at all

I also discounted a few examples of "other crap exists".

With all of this considered there is a clear consensus to delete. Chillum 02:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season[edit]

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

Article that lists (or plans to list) detailed sports stats for a single season for a single tennis player, contrary to WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that establish this as a notable subject. - Mr X 01:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, Lacks significant coverage from reliable , independent sources. Babita arora 06:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Mr. X--Wikipedia is not meant to be the repository for all sports information. Jakejr (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable single tennis season of professional tennis player. To my way of thinking, three guidelines are in play here: WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. NOTSTATSBOOK can be argued, but I think it cuts mostly against the inclusion of single seasons of single athletes. In order for us to even consider including a single season of a single athlete, the season must be something exceptional and truly notable, e.g. Roger Maris' record homerun season, etc., and the season itself must satisfy the general notability guidelines with in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. While WP:NSEASONS specifically refers only to team seasons, not those of individual athletes, its examples provide some guidance of what might be considered exceptional. In this case, I think the subject season fails as an exceptional sports event and also fails for lack of notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Articles of this sort are common for the top current tennis players. Category:Tennis player seasons lists 64 such articles (by my count), including 9 for Maria Sharapova. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines states that articles like this are allowed for tennis players who have won a grand slam tournament. I don't think an AFD on just one of these articles is the right way to decide if they are appropriate or not, and instead think an RFC might be better. My impression is that the justification for these articles is that they are the equivalent to season articles for professional sports teams, which are allowed per WP:NSEASONS (but I'm not 100% sure if that is the justification . . . someone at WP:TENNIS could probably say for sure). Also, I personally don't take WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as a reason to delete this or any other article, as my interpretation is that it is instructions on how to write articles, and not what articles should exist (i.e., it is saying to describe things in prose and give explanations of statistics, rather than merely listing statistics). Calathan (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calathan, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for a non-notable sports season article. Speaking as a regular sports editor, I can honestly say that sports as a subject area generates far more suspect articles of this nature than most others (with the possible exceptions of porn and pro wrestling!). As for the other articles, let's deal with this one first, and then the others can be reviewed one by one later. Usually, it is highly unproductive to mass nominate a whole class of related articles, because many may fail AfD while others may pass. Mass nominations usually only work where all or virtually all are likely to fail AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must be misunderstanding the intent of my comment since you referred to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS . . . I wasn't trying to make a case that this article be kept, and certainly wasn't arguing that it be kept because there are a bunch of other similar articles. I took part of MrX's deletion rationale as saying that articles of this sort generally shouldn't exist. I was trying to point out that a wikiproject is specifically saying such articles are alright, that they presumably have discussed the subject and probably came to a consensus that these articles are alright, and that they are creating a bunch of similar articles. I don't think an AFD on one article is the right place to change a wikiproject's guidelines, and instead think an RFC is the right place. I didn't mean to make any comment on whether this particular season is notable. Calathan (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Calathan. The events of Maria Sharapova's 2013 tennis season have been covered in hundreds of reliable sources and many refer to it as a noun (e.g. "Maria Sharapova: Lessons Learned from the 2013 Tennis Season" in the International Business Times). It is true that this article currently is deficient, but see 2013 Serena Williams tennis season or 2013 Roger Federer tennis season for an example of what this article could be. Antrocent (♫♬) 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A season article with numerous reliable sources for a very notable player like Maria Sharapova is the equivalent to season articles for professional sports teams, like 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season, which are allowed per WP:NSEASONS. To the best of my knowledge these tennis player season articles were created by editors who thought they would be a valuable addition and without a lot of prior discussion at WP:TENNIS. Some notable AfD's in 2010 (Rafael Nadal) and 2011 (Roger Federer) resulted in 'Keep (no consensus)' and 'Keep', respectively. Recently there were some season articles created for less notable players and this led to a project discussion that codified the requirement that a player must have won a grand slam title before season articles can be created. Maria Sharapova clearly meets that requirement. A couple of player season articles have recently been deleted for failing that criteria (see also 2014 Milos Raonic tennis season). Per Calathan I agree that WP:NOTSTATSBOOK does not apply, see also the examples given by Antrocent.--Wolbo (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First and foremost, WP:NSEASONS, by its own terms, only applies to "individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues"; any reliance on WP:NSEASONS as a short cut in establishing the notability of a single season of a single professional tennis player is misplaced. To demonstrate the notability of any single season of one pro tennis player, that defined season -- not the player, not the individual tournaments played by the player during the season, not the player's promotions and endorsements during that season -- must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means the player's individual 2013 season -- not the player, not the 2013 tournaments in which the player participated, not the player's 2013 promotions, and not the 2013 WTA Tour season -- must have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. That's no small task, because tennis player's careers are not normally covered on the basis of single seasons like many team sports are.

Second, WikiProjects do not determine Wikipedia-wide policy and guidelines, and that includes WikiProject Tennis. Speaking as a regular editor of sports-related articles and an active member of several sports-related WikiProjects, the projects often do great work by standardizing content and formatting, focusing attention on priority articles, and generating and channeling the enthusiasm and productive efforts of project participants into their highest and best uses. Just to be clear: what WikiProjects do not do is make Wikipedia-wide polcy and guidelines. Notability and other guidelines regarding the suitability for inclusion of articles in Wikipedia are determined at the Wikipedia-wide level, at AfD and other Wikipedia-wide level forums.

Now, back to the issue at hand, editors who wish to keep this article must demonstrate the notability of Maria Sharapova's 2013 professional tennis season -- and that means the editors arguing to keep the article must show significant coverage of the Sharapova's 2013 season in multiple, independent, reliable sources. To be clear: we are not talking about significant coverage of Maria Sharapova (for whom there is already an article), nor the individual 2013 tournaments in which she participated (for which all majors already have articles), nor the 2013 WTA Tour (for which there is already an article). Supporting sources must show significant coverage of Sharapova's 2013 season in and of itself. Nothing else will satisfy GNG. So, my suggestion is quit arguing about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (whether Venus has a season artilce is irrelevant), NSEASONS (which only applies to sports team seasons), and WikiProject input (they don't make Wikipedia-wide policy), and start producing sources that covered Sharapova's 2013 season; otherwise, this article is going to get deleted for a failure to satisfy the general notability guidelines of GNG. Moreover, if you can show significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources per GNG, I will change my !vote to "keep." So quit complaining and get cracking: the burden is on the "keep" !voters to show that such significant coverage exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the guidelines for producing single season articles, and from what I have now read there is absolutley no room for manoeuvre to provide those sources. The SEASONS guidelines do not include single season criteria's for solo players (why not?) competing in solo or duo sports in anyone single year so its a complete no brainer! however that does not mean it's right of course WP:NSEASONS inclusion of which I see as biased as a professional team or sports club's in most cases are multi-million dollar enterprises who of course can employ full time staff writers that of course can provide an endless supply of written sources from their own commercial websites about the team. An indvidual player (Tennis, Golf, Darts etc) cannot provide those sources unless they decide set themselves up as a business for example Team Roger Federer Inc, Team Andy Murray Ltd, Team Rafael Nadal SAR run a commercial website employing staff writers and editors and publish books and articles from within their own publishing department. In regard to the only fall back option you now have regarding GNG then I'm afraid Maria Sharapova's article is dead in the water! but then of course some editors already knew that me thinks--Navops47 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navops, WP:NSEASONS does not include guidelines for individual player seasons because no one ever contemplated that 100,000-byte single-season articles would ever be created for individual athletes. It has nothing to do with coverage produced by team publicists; such coverage is not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. I think you can justify single-season articles for truly exceptional single seasons of individual athletes where significant coverage exists per WP:GNG, but that's going to be the exception, not the rule. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac; it's an encyclopedia. It's all about written text about notable people and the major events in the lives of those notable people, not lists of statistics, and certainly not about chronicling in detail every event, major or minor, that occurs in the life of a notable person. At some point, that becomes an indiscriminate collection of information per WP:NOT. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your point "I think you can justify single-season articles for truly exceptional single seasons of individual athletes where significant coverage exists per WP:GNG, but that's going to be the exception, not the rule" I agree with that statement and what would be the definition of exceptional,on your other point "It has nothing to do with coverage produced by team publicists; such coverage is not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to support the notability of a subject" very interesting as I have seen an awful lot of season articles that fail that statement outright. Looking at it objectivley is this a truly an exceptional season (by definition) for Sharapova in 2014 to date 1 Major, 3 Tour titles W/L 38-9 (80.85%) and nobody writing extensivley about it then you have to say no in which case I would have to go with delete --Navops47 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depending on how you define truly exceptional and extensive coverage Sharapova has really had only one great personal season in 2012, includes 2 Major title wins and SF of 1 other Major, competed in the Year End tour championship final, had a W/L 21-3 87.5% in Majors, won 3 titles from 9 tour finals, her season overall W/L 60-11, 85% the top ten records for win/loss in Majors and Tour Seasons include players at W/L 90% or more with more titles she's not on those lists even with this 2012 season. food for thought--Navops47 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navops, I agree with most of what you say above. I would also urge WikiProject Tennis to tighten their internal standard for single-season articles for tennis pros. Right now, it permits single-season articles for pros who have won a Grand Slam title at any time in their career. I would urge WikiProject Tennis to tighten its standard to permit single-season articles for pros who have won a Grand Slam title during the subject season of the article. That should better track the significant coverage of the player's season, but satisfying the notability guidelines will still depend on the existence of significant coverage about the specific season in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. As a practical matter, however, I would expect individual season articles to be less frequently nominated for AfD when the season includes one or more Grand Slam championships. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with both of you but I have two minor remarks. WP:NSEASONS apply only for teams, which is "buggy". E.g. The Bryan brothers are a tennis team. So by this standard they can have their own season article, while Maria Sharapova can't and they play the same sport! Thus I advise every editor to leave that guideline out of this conversation because it certainly fails to define the word "team" to begin with. Second the word "exceptional" is an ill-defined notability criteria as well. Basicly every editor feels what is exveptional differently. Still I agree both of you and when the WP:TENNIS agreed on the Grand Slam winners circle I've thought all along it was agreed to have that GS win within the season in question...It would be the most logical choice and would limit the number of season articles per year to eight at most (men-women combined). There are 148 men's GS winners and if we assume that all of them had a 10-year career it will be 1480 articles. Almost the half of them, 63, only won a GS once so that's 567 articles less. And only Nadal had a 10-year span of winning at least one GS in each of them. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, WP:NSEASONS makes no mention of specifically excluding single player seasons. Surely we should be rational here as tennis players do not compete as a team and so in effect they are the team themselves. However, it seems like most people aren't willing to consider that argument so here's a collection of sources with specific reference to Sharapova's 2013 season to show GNG. Yahoo IB Times Tennis Now Bleacher Report Give Me Sport Bleacher Report-(2) There's also several reviews of the 2013 season featuring multiple players, making reference to Sharapova's performances in 2013. The Roar WTA ESPN It's probably also worth noting that several prominent sports sites will list all her 2013 results, for example ESPN here. Scheduling also receives wide coverage, for example withdrawals from specific tournaments receives coverage in CBC Sports Illustrated USA Today The Guardian Personally, I also feel articles on her performances at specific tournaments in 2013 are also enough to show this as they're specifically about her rather than the tournament itself but that seems to be disputed. Overall performance receives coverage as well, for example prize money earned in 2013 on Forbes Username of a generic kind (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding WP:NSEASONS: The first two sentences of NSEASONS state:

"Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.

"Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players."

NSEASONS never mentions single seasons of individual athletes and is clearly written to address team seasons only. In the absence of a specific notability guideline on a given subject, the subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That requires significant coverage about the specific individual season (here Sharapova's 2013 season) in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish the season's notability per GNG. That's Notability 101. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding reliable, independent sources . . . The Yahoo article is a reprint from a user-contributed blog called "Busted Racquet" (Yahoo uses a lot of non-professional, user-contributed content because it's free). BleacherReport.com is a user-contributed sports blog. GiveMeSport.com is also a user-contributed sports blog. TheRoar.com is an Australian user-contributed sports blog. WTA.com is the official website of the Women's Tennis Association, and is not a source independent of the subject (we don't use NFL.com, NBA.com, or MiamiDolphins.com to establish notability, either). You may want to review WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source, and WP:N for what independent sources may be used to support the notability of a subject. And the independent, reliable sources like IBD and ESPN need to provide significant coverage of Sharapova's 2013 season, not just passing mentions. This is apparently a tougher standard than you realize. And finally, I posit that a stand-alone list of tournaments in which a player participated, without significant explanatory text, violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying is that it doesn't exclude individual articles which you've proved yourself. It doesn't state anything like "Articles must not be created on individual player seasons", you're just making that inference yourself. But anyway, I'm not arguing that is enough to merit inclusion regardless. As for the sources, I merely went with the results from the first few pages of google, I was largely unaware that these were user-contributed blogs. Even excluding those you mentioned, that still leaves eight other sources. But anyway I'll provide other sources which I know are reputable. Guardian 1 Guardian 2 Guardian 3 Sunday Times 1 Sunday Times 2 Telegraph 1 Telegraph 2 Once again I've just taken the first few results as most news sources provide plenty of results when searched for Sharapova's 2013 season. Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a look at Sharpova's performance in regards to WTA Tour records since 1973 she does not feature in any top ten list for any single season throughout her career not for most titles won, consecutively won, match winning streaks, win/loss percentage during the tour year or in Majors she has competed in more than 1 Major final for a single season but only once she has 9 seperate yearly articles really if you just used the WTA records as yearly performance notability she qualifys for one season only 2012 the other 8 not really and that season needs to be covered properly highlighting a few facts.--Navops47 (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navops47, the point is that according to the current tennis project criteria, which were discussed, she qualifies for a season article and that is what we should judge, in addition to any other relevant guidelines that apply. If you disagree with those project criteria then that is a discussion to be held at WP:TENNIS but not here. As it stand I believe the tennis project has strict criteria compared to some other sports.--Wolbo (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, you can voice whatever opinion you like, but WikiProject Tennis's internal criteria, standards and rules of thumb do not constitute specific notability guidelines per WP:NSPORTS and are not binding on anyone, including WP Tennis project members. This is AfD and the only guidelines that are binding in the case of this particular article are the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. WikiProjects do not make their own rules for the notability of articles in their subject areas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Username of a generic kind," you are putting words in my mouth that I never spoke. The specific notability guideline of NSEASONS does not cover articles about single seasons of individual athletes. It does not prohibit such articles, and I never suggested that it did. What I did say was in the absence of an applicable specific notability guideline, the subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. And that requires significant coverage specifically about Sharapova's 2013 season in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Period.

Now, let's review your latest round of proposed sources for Sharapova's 2013 season:

1. The first Guardian article does not even mention the "2013 season";

2. The second Guardian article does not mention the word "season";

3. The third Guardian article does not mention the word "season";

4. The first two paragraphs of the first Sunday Times article mention "2013," but not the word "season" (the rest hidden behind the paywall);

5. The first two paragraphs of the second Sunday Times article mention neither "2013" nor "season" (the rest hidden behind the paywall); and

6. the two Telegraph articles are hidden behind the paywall, but it's a safe bet that neither has significant coverage of Sharapova's 2013 season, either.

This is not about recounting Sharapova's individual tournament performances in 2013. Remember, the subject of the article here at AfD is "2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season," not "Maria Sharapova's performance at the 2013 _______ tournament." In order to satisfy GNG on the chosen subject you need to produce sources that are discussing the chosen subject, not Maria Sharapova, not her performance at a given tournament, but significant coverage of her 2013 season, and to the extent significant coverage of her 2013 season exists, it's probably going to include some analysis of what went wrong for her in 2013. Furthermore, I'm a little surprised that people would fight so hard for this article when Sharapova's 2013 season wasn't anything exceptional or special at all; in fact, her 2013 season is more a litany of failures than an exceptional single season that would attract significant coverage from the mainstream media. If you want to keep this article, you need to source it with significant coverage about Maria Sharapova's 2013 season, not related topics. So far, you have produced nothing that could not be incorporated into the main Maria Sharapova parent article -- to the extent it's even relevant to a discussion of her overall career. Not every detail of an athlete's career needs to be chronicled, any more than we need a discussion of David Cameron's third form teacher. A well-written biography should set forth the major elements of the biography; for a professional athlete, that does not include recounting the results of every game or match she ever played. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per longstanding Tennis Project consensus. Why the heck was this even nominated? All players who have won a major in their careers can have seasonal articles for every season they competed. Certainly to create it one should do the proper sourcing to make it complete, but this is a long established protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck, because the "protocol" you just quoted is NOT the Wikipedia guideline for single-season articles for individual tennis players; it's an unenforceable rule of thumb adopted by WikiProject Tennis alone (please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). The standard of notability per Wikipedia's general notability guidelines requires that the subject (Maria Sharapova's 2013 season) have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, which this subject does not. That is what the Wikipedia general notability guidelines require. That's why.

Oh, and as for the "protocol" being "a long established protocol," uh, no it's not. The "protocol" language was inserted by two participants in this AfD discussion -- User:Wolbo (see diff here and User:Fyunck (see diff here) on May 30, 2014. Moreover, the only prior talk page discussion involved three of this AfD's participants (see talk page here). As I am sure you know, a WikiProject talk page discussion involving three WikiProject members does not establish notability guidelines for Wikipedia. So, let's drop the "long established protocol" assertion, shall we? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that full notability requirements were being followed in line with the requirements beyond WT Project and to be honest I did not take a more in depth look at the proposals that was my error.--Navops47 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What. The. Hell? Fyunck, you're claiming that a "protocol" that's been in place in your private essay for two freaking months constitutes a "longstanding consensus?" Perhaps you could do us all a favor and strike your vote pending some more valid grounds? This is on the verge of bad faith. Ravenswing 13:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My private essay... where do I have a private essay Ravenswing? Our Tennis project guidelines have usually been talked about for years but sometimes our consensus gets missed and when new editors ask about a detail we had been using for years we add it for clarity. So back off the "private essay" baloney and vote striking nonsense. This was decided "years ago" in a big debate about Federer's yearly articles and how they affect all tennis players in history. We have used that result since. We have never had a wikipedia-wide guideline on single seasons articles... and guidelines have to have flexibility because one size never fits all. We have decided on something that has worked for a long time that all sides have been satisfied with. Why are we suddenly messing with it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Ravenswing get the idea that your internal WikiProject "protocols" were an essay? Perhaps from the "protocols" themselves, and I quote: "This section is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest." Interesting reading, and perhaps you should spend some more time with it. In any event, any notability "guidelines" adopted by an individual WikiProject outside the context of consensus as the WP:NSPORTS talk page do not supersede WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. In the absence of a specific notability guideline, a given subject must satisfy the general notability guidelines per GNG. Again, Fyunck, this is Notability 101. One WikiProject does not get to make its own rules without getting the consensus blessing of the larger Wikipedia community -- you do understand and accept this basic principle, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not my own private essay... it is an established guideline for tennis. Perhaps you should speak with less of an acidic tone when addressing others. They do not supersede nsports or gng, they add additional information. Wiki Guidelines by definition can't cover everything for every topic. That's why the projects exist... to help editors and readers. It is why we link our Project Guidelines at nsports to further clarify things as do hockey guidelines and baseball guidelines. Sharapova and her accomplishments are massively notable... Notability 101. Players pages get very huge and we split them for convenience to our readers. The fact she has won multiple Majors, and there is so much information on her year by year matches, by consensus we have established yearly articles for truly special players. We do our best to patrol so we don't have thousands of these things (and we don't) and we develop templates for these articles (such as Template:Tennis sm header) to try to make them cleaner and tighter for our readers. We have to have special rules about about paraplegic tennis events, and players before the Open Era. We argue and talk about tennis coaches and college tennis and how they fit in when they get heavy local coverage but not so much national coverage. What do we do when a jr wins the Orange Bowl but not the Jr Australian Open. How do we handle exhibition event notability when it might be covered a lot in Dubai but not Canada or Australia. What do we do about the retired senior events? What about when lady itf events don't match the men's itf events? Do things like the Hopman Cup qualify? We try to be objective and fair and give our readers what they want without giving them overbloat. I think Tennis Project has done a pretty great job of handling these things, and little things come up all the time that most at wikpedia don't want to be bothered with, nor should they have to be. Tennis project will do the dirty work which is what we were designed for. I really salute our Tennis Project editors even when I disagree with a consensus that gets established. They're a good bunch who only want the best for our readers. Our readers are everything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A direct quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines:

"This section is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest."

And frankly, it could not be anything else other than an "essay" -- an opinion regarding recommended approaches -- because no WikiProject can adopt its own notability guidelines without gaining the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community. No one gets to write their own rules that contradict WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. If you cannot acknowledge and accept that, you're way out on a limb by yourself, Fyunck. Please review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS if you still don't get it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And they don't. In fact we often would exclude some high school tennis player per our own guidelines since high school players don't meet our guidelines. But when that high school player is the talk of Bangladesh, we use GNG to make sure she doesn't get left out. Remember those items you mention are guidelines themselves, not policy. They are flexible and have to be used realistically. "It is best treated with common sense" per it's own header. It is NOT etched in stone. My limb is better than your twig. Do you have something against sports or tennis or our reader's insatiable appetite for information? There are so few of the player season articles because there are so few Grand Slam tournament winners over the course of 137 years among the millions of tennis players and countless thousands who qualify by GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested I found this entry in the WP:TENNIS archives regarding the creation of such season articles. It dates back to 2009 however only two editors participated in the consensus. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this entry shows that WP:TENNIS did ask the WP:Notability staff on this matter way back in 2011. No asnwers has been posted on that request. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajbi:This has been discussed more than that. We had a large rfc on it back in 2011 too when discussion of Roger Federer's articles came up. Several admins participated with lots of give and take. These series of discussions help us form our current consensus and to change it now seems unfair. As you said we asked for extra help and none came. Why all of a sudden do we need to erase a lot of hard work? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Maybe times change and some issues weren't brought up simply because noone thought it'd be a problem. Currently there are so many issues mostly thanks to the (lack of) notability criteria I can't even explain. I don't know if it's the right place to discuss it but I try. So a player won a GS and every season of his is notable afterwards even if:

He/She missed 90% of the season due to injury. At least a limit of activeness should be implemented.
He/She was defeated in the first round of every tournament. A page full of one-round results in prose.
He/She is a semi-pro and only receives wildcards to some tournaments. Like Lleyton Hewitt.
He/She is a comeback player. By this standard the 2014 Patrick Rafter tennis season could be created.
The resolution for the combination of these. Does the 2014 Rafael Nadal tennis season notable if he misses the rest of the season due the wrist injury? That's half of the season. Or is the first half of the season more important because of the three majors?
And these are what I could think of off the top of my head and clearly the current number of season articles indicate the seriousness of the situation. Some of them already fail to comply with what I've just said above. And even more restricting than that has to come. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lajbi:Not to get into right or wrong... just a clarification on an error you made. You said "So a player won a GS and every season of his is notable afterwards." That is not true per consensus. You should have said "If a player wins a GS they may have season articles for every year before AND after that GS win." Earlier years count too. That was because of Roger Federer's Jr career creation. So it's even less restrictive than you thought if I recall it correctly. I was against ALL yearly articles but I stick with my tennis project team once consensus was reached. I wonder if when things like that happen we should merge multiple seasonal articles into one? 17:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) [reply]

I would support such a solution only if it serves the purpose to relieve the main Roger Federer (or any) page. So instead of merging season articles we are fine having a Roger Federer junior years because his page is currently is still over 100k bytes (141,561). But for Milos Raonic? I don't think it's necessary to have merged pages for him whatever the consensus of this AfD will be. Otherwise a merge could serve as a "save" for those pages that are in risk of deletion. "Doesn't have a GS win for 2013? Merge it with 2012 and it's all fine." Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Raonic hasn't got a Major victory yet so it's academic... he can't have a seasonal article yet. As for size, Roger is at 41k of readable prose to that's comfortably within article size limits of 100k. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing of note. Maria Sharapova already has 56kB of readable prose (where we don't like going over 60k if possible). If the information that is finally added into the sections of the 2013 season (when completed) gets transferred to the main article it makes that main article section unusually large. If then other yearly articles of hers get nixed in the future, many sections of her main page get larger. I'm guessing that most readers don't go directly to her 2014 Season article... they click on the main page link because they want more info. The season articles are natural page splits for the popular player. Right or wrong, you know from experience that season info will be plopped somewhere by editors, and the main page or career stats is where it will land without a stand alone. Just an observation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted, fails the GNG and does not qualify for any NSPORTS (as not a team season). Points above that suggest that the exceptional case of a player with a very notable individual season might qualify for an article are spot on - the average case is that a player in an individual sport like tennis might have a career summary page but not a per season page (and based on how this page is loaded, the same information can be extracted from the pages on the specific matches, so there's even duplication). Wikiproject guidelines cannot supercede global guidelines, though they can restrict further. Basically, this is far too much detail being given to an individual player. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Honestly, this is a slam dunk, and any reference to the tennis Project's private essays as grounds to keep have no validity whatsoever. NO WikiProject can unilaterally declare criteria that are not submitted as a genuine notability guideline to supersede the requirements of the GNG. Why has the Tennis Project failed to submit this guideline to NSPORTS ... one wonders?
Secondly, addressing the seasons argument: the (rather obvious) reason why season team articles are notable is that seasons are how team sports are organized. They compete within discrete seasons, their whole activity is based around achievement in discrete seasons, team honors are exclusively gained within discrete seasons, championships are defined as being the best in any given season, and the media coverage of those seasons, as discrete units, is overwhelming. For the most part, individual sports don't work that way. No annual honors were at stake for Sharapova depending on how many tournaments she won in 2013; media outlets didn't report on the percentage of serves she won in that calendar year, or how many sets she won. Ravenswing 13:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is in NSPORTS at the bottom. Not everything that is tennis related can be covered in a simple nsports guideline so we direct editors to the tennis project for more detailed explanations. It can't take into account tournament notability or coaching notability, every paralympic event without being massively long. NSPORTS simply gives editors a quick look at what is always notable, but there are plenty of smaller tennis items of note that make the cut too. We tried to take a fair and balanced approach in the discussions, always with our readers in mind and it's how we came to our guidelines as they exist today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just looked over the tennis section at NSPORTS, yet again, and see nothing of the sort. Some WikiProjects (including ice hockey, and at my instigation, to practice full disclosure) have "See elsewhere" sections. But in every other case these denote lists: what leagues are or are not notable, what awards are considered major or not, what competitions are considered notable or not. In no case do they delineate rules, which in every case should be on the NSPORTS page. Ravenswing 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ravenswing, while I agree with most of your comments above, I will not disparage WikiProject Tennis' efforts to provide guidance to their project members regarding what tennis-related subjects are appropriate for stand-alone articles. I think such efforts are to be encouraged, provided they recognize the over-riding nature of the Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines, and I wish all sports WikiProjects had internal article standards that were as well-thought-out and comprehensive as those of WikiProject Tennis. Where they have gone astray is to assume such standards can incorporate an expansive idea of notability beyond that of the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSPORTS or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As Masem notes above, it is my opinion that WikiProjects can impose more restrictive article standards (within reason), or channel content into specific into articles of specific formats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't myself disparage efforts of WikiProjects to provide guidance on article creation. What I disparage -- and what I *did* disparage -- is when those projects take their private essays and declare that their house rules override the GNG and such SNGs as are in place. Ravenswing 19:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be fair tennis players do comptete in a structured tennis season with the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) Tour it normally runs from the end of December of the preceding year to the end of November in the current year of the tour culminating in a season ending championship ATP World Tour Finals this is exactly the same arrangment for the WTA Tour and the season ending WTA Tour Championships whilst this is a solo sport the culimanation of the season for a player is to qualify for year end championships. The problem the way I see it is that however you want to call a players notable season it won't generate enough material to satisfy WP:GNG unless people start writing about it that way, this does not mean that a particular players performance is not exceptional for example winning 3 out of 4 Majors in the same season which is like a club soccer/football team winning their national season championships the continental Champions League Championship and the Global Club Championships in the same calendar year. Notable seasons for tennis players should be included as per the record books in my opinion where you strike the balance I don't know.--Navops47 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navops, if a given tennis player wins two or three Grand Slam titles in a single year/season, you can be sure that the mainstream sports media will be chattering about what a "year" or "season" that the player had. And, no, I would not quibble over the word "season" if multiple feature articles were published in reliable sources which discuss the player's exceptional "year" in depth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think this is a mistake. You realize that articles such as 1929 in tennis would also fall under this delete criteria? There are just as few major sources that talk about such minutia as an entire season such as 1929 in tennis or 1930 in tennis as there are who talk about a super in our sport's 2013 season. In fact I would think there are far more sources talking about 2013 Sharapova than 1929 tennis. They are all important and have been talked about at Tennis Project or individual afd discussions and it is something that has worked for years. I'm not sure why you would change the status quo at this stage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change my mind. As I said above I thought the GS win-criteria referred to the season the player won it. It's my fault since I misinterpreted it but it is obviously got out of hand. Honestly I don't think I ever want to read about 2014 Juan Martín del Potro tennis season nor do I find it notable. It's not about media coverage and I'm aware that some editors are arguing with that reasoning but it's out of my business. 1929 in tennis falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST in this debate so it's irrelevant. Secondly every year in tennis has something (record set, rule changes, new inventions) that makes them notable, which can't be said about this Sharapova season either. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one is not an easy call for me. A couple preliminary points. First, there is room for reasonable debate over which individual tennis seasons merit stand-alone articles, but I think that broader debate is best held elsewhere. Second, the article in its current format is in the nature of a statistical compilation; that's a reason to improve (to make the article more like 2013 Serena Williams tennis season) but not necessarily reason to delete. What matters for AfD purposes is not the current state of the article, but whether Sharapova's 2013 season has received significant coverage satisfying WP:GNG. By Sharapova's recent standards, her 2013 season was an "off" year, but still decent. She did not win any majors, but she did win the BNP Paribas and Porsche tournaments, played in the finals at the French Open, and was ranked No. 3 in the world when her season ended prematurely due to injury. Coverage of her 2013 season includes (1) this article from the International Business Times specifically focused on Sharapova's 2013 tennis season. A google search for Sharapova and "2013 season" turns up 41,000 hits, including (2) this from The New York Times focusing largely on her 2013 season, (3) this from Sports Illustrated, (4) this this from the UPI, (5) this from Tennis Channel, and (6) this from TennisNow focusing on S's 2013 tennis season. I am still on the fence on "keep" vs. "delete" but thought I'd offer some of my preliminary thoughts. Cbl62 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the broader discussion is best held elsewhere, I do find Lajbi's suggestion to be an intriguing one -- if I understood correctly, individual season articles for tennis players could be presumed to be notable if a player has won at least one of the four majors. Another possibility would be to base it on year end ranking, e.g., individual season articles only permitted for seasons in which a player finished ranked no. 1 (or, maybe, in the top two). Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes it wholly subjective: what makes someone ranked #10's year notable, and #11's not? Beyond that, this violates the overriding principle of NSPORTS: that someone who meets any of the subordinate criteria is likely to be able to meet the GNG. What about anyone's individual season -- short of someone winning the Grand Slam, something a lot of people no longer feel needs to be done within one given calendar year -- makes it more likely to be written about as a season as any other? Ravenswing 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The broader issue requires more thought. I meant to suggest some rules of presumed notability for an SNG, not to suggest that other season articles couldn't also be created if they met GNG. Pretty clearly, at least in the modern era, a player who is ranked #1 in a season would merit a season article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.. This is a tough one for me cause I don't follow tennis that closely these days but there really doesnt seem to be enough here other than stats... All these tennis season articles should probably be merged into a 2013 Women's tennis season or something similar.. I don't know if such an article presently exists because i couldn't find one, but an overall article discussing how all the top ranked women tennis players performed during a particular year would be an important article.. but one individual person seems too much for me, unless it was a particularly noteworthy season involving a lot of championships or something like that.Spanneraol (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, if completed it would look something like 2013 Serena Williams tennis season. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Serena won multiple titles and was the top ranked player in the world in her year. Spanneraol (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going for criteria as much as you had mentioned all stats and no prose. When complete the 2013 Sharapova season would look more full so deletion/merging should be based on solely on that. I guess like 2007 Serena Williams tennis season where she was No. 7. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ,I think Sharapova is a famous tennis player,so it need to write down her every year's season,it is important for Wiki project of tennis,maybe you can delete some just like Eugenie Bouchard,Dominika Cibulková or someone like that.if you wan't to delete then there are many tennis season articles,how do you wan't to do ,delete all of them?--Chinyen Lu (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Maria Sharapova is a famous tennis player" is not a valid argument in this AfD, which is about the notability of Sharapova's 2013 season per Wikipedia's general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. In short, in order for this article to be kept, we need to determine that there has been significant coverage of Sharapova's 2013 season -- not Sharapova herself, not Sharapova's performance in individual tournaments, not Sharapova's endorsements and promotions -- but Sharapova's 2013 season, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Maria Sharapova's notability and fame as a tennis player are not at issue here; the notability of her 2013 season is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undivided - Sharapova's 2013 season was a mixed bag; she reached the French Open final (lost to Serena Williams) and then was injured after Wimbledon. Honestly I don't care which way it goes. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dirtlawyer1.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the highest ranking tennis players in the world makes her notable. Dream Focus 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason for keeping her biography. Do you have a policy-based reason why we should keep this stats article?- Mr X 15:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @Dream Focus: you do realize that the article that is the subject of this AfD is not Maria Sharapova, right? No one is questioning the notability of Maria Sharapova, but many of us have serious questions regarding the notability of 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season, which is not the same thing. In order for the 2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season article to pass notability muster under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, her 2013 season, by itself, must have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Not trivial mentions, mind you, but coverage that provides some measure of in-depth discussion and analysis of the season, separate and apart from the athlete. No individual athlete, no matter how prominent, is guaranteed an in-depth stats outline of each and every season of his or her sports career. That's why we have notability guidelines: to determine what particular subjects merit stand-alone encyclopedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we going to delete every single article like this then? Category:Tennis player seasons shows 100 articles exist for this in different subcategories. Notable matches always have coverage, they talking about the person and how they did that game and that season. Dream Focus 17:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir, we are not going to delete every one of those 100+ tennis player season articles because many, if not most of them will survive exactly the sort of scrutiny we are giving this stand-alone article for Maria Sharapova's 2013 season. We are not going to nominate most of them for AfD, and, frankly, once this AfD is properly resolved, I would be inclined to give WikiProject Tennis a measure of flexibility to police their own articles once a proper precedent is set here. I did not nominate this article for AfD, and I am certainly not on a crusade to purge the category. This article, however, does present novel problems of notability that should be addressed by the Wikipedia community -- stand-alone season articles for individual athletes have never been seriously considered before -- and that's why I have pursued it. Many of these articles, such as 2013 Serena Williams tennis season, clearly pass muster under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. This notability of the particular article in this AfD is far less convincing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's mighty nice of you to "give" wikiproject tennis things of your choosing. I'm not sure who set you up as our supreme leader but I didn't vote for you. And this is one article...no precedent here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck, I am an experienced editor who regularly edits articles across multiple sports, and also regularly participates in notability AfD discussions for articles related to multiple sports. I am also an active member in the WikiProjects for more than a half dozen different sports, several of which regularly coordinate their efforts among them. As a result, I am inclined to see the Big Picture, and how poorly thought out decisions in one area have implications for all. I am not "giving" you anything of my choosing, as you insinuate; I am suggesting that once tempers such as yours subside, and cooler heads prevail, the participants of WikiProject Tennis collectively know their own sport better than most others and probably can come up with internal standards that comply with Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines once they are nudged to do so. I am sorry if you cannot understand that in your present huff and misconception that some evil, anti-sports outsider such as myself (as your comments here and elsewhere have suggested) actually has the best interests of both Wikipedia and WikiProject Tennis at heart. I suggest you assume good faith, dial your rhetoric down a notch or two, focus on the applicable policy and guidelines relevant to this AfD discussion, and drop the "supreme leader" ad hominem nonsense. It's grotesquely exaggerated and it's not scoring you any points to keep this article. I also urge you to review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:AGF and WP:NPA before responding further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my biggest complaint here is your "holy-than-thou" attitude. You are the only one who has to comment after everyone who disagrees with you. You comment when someone simply says no but you don't comment when someone simply says yes per dirtlawyer. That's biased imho. I assume good faith in your convictions, but the administrative closer doesn't need to see you say it over and over again. The supreme leader thing was your own folly by your own ridiculous suggestions of "Notability 101" and "I would be inclined to give WikiProject Tennis a measure of flexibility to police their own articles..." You don't have that kind of power. We had asked for help here before and none came, so we worked out a good compromise and have used it for years. It was against my own suggestions, but it works. To change it now seems very unfair to those who work hard to keep the tennis articles fresh, balanced and updated. Remember also that when you say our tennis guidelines aren't binding, neither are wikipedia guidelines (as wikipedia's own rules state). Only policy articles are binding. And as a long time editor here I'm sure you're aware that "in reality" consensus drubs everything. Just the way it is here. If 90% of editors want it to say the sun is blue then that's exactly how the article on the sun will read, regardless of sourcing or guidelines. We try to use the wikproject tennis guidelines to give our articles good structure and really rarely ever have to put up afd's for season articles. There aren't that many and a gentle tap on the shoulder usually suffices when new editors go astray. This has never been a big deal... till now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck says: "I think my biggest complaint here is your 'holy-than-thou' attitude." Then, may I suggest that you focus on the Wikipedia policies and notability guidelines that are relevant to this AfD discussion instead of lashing out in an angry manner at other editors who disagree with your position? As a young law student, I remember hearing the old saying that "when the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the lectern in an angry fashion and demand justice." Many of your arguments here are of the latter kind, and raising your rhetorical voice isn't going to convince many experienced editors who understand the concepts of notability and the role of the guidelines as embodying Wikipedia-wide consensus. The guidelines are normative, in the sense they reflect actual majority best practice. As for the Wikipedia notability guidelines "not being binding," go ahead, make that argument, and you will lose 95 out of 100 AfDs. Satisfying the notability guidelines is neither a guarantee that a subject is appropriate for inclusion, nor is failing one of them a certainty that the subject will be excluded -- but if you're going to try to ignore the guidelines you better have a very strong argument for ignoring them in order to preserve content that does not satisfy our basic concepts of notability. So far in this discussion, you have not done that, only argue that this is a settled matter within WP Tennis, which frankly you have exaggerated and arguably misrepresented.

Boy do we disagree here. I have lashed out at no one who disagrees, you have. I lash out at those who act "holy-than-thou" or misrepresent facts as you have. Look at the list of "deletes" and see how many I have "lashed out at." Look at the list of "keeps" and see if your name appears in contradiction. Case closed. This IS a settled matter at WP Tennis...it is not exaggerated or misrepresented. It is longstanding consensus. Sure it can be changed just as anything else can, but previous RFC's on the matter, and zero help here when asked in the past, had the matter settled till this afd appeared. Sure WPGuidelines work for many cases but they are very general in nature and it's impossible to work for every subject. That's pretty much why we have Projects; to help in things the general guidelines simply weren't built to handle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ask anyone who posts a one word "delete" !vote to post the reasoning for their opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each article should be evaluated on its own merits. This article would be a keeper if Wikipedia was a sports almanac. It's not. Not every minute detail of an athlete's career is worth mentioning. Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium; a concise compilation of a body of knowledge.- Mr X 18:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Dream Focus, my larger concern in this AfD is not really this particular article; it's the potential precedent that it sets for not only tennis, but other sports. Wikipedia really does not need a proliferation of stand-alone single-season articles for every big-time American football quarterback, association football star, NBA or Euroleague basketball player, Olympic gymnast, NHL hockey player, MLB or NPB home run hitter, or test cricket player . . . . Most of this subject material should be incorporated into other existing articles, starting with the primary biography of the athlete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential precedent?" This is the way it's been for a long while now... it's not like this just happened. This is what the project has established and I don't see it causing a riot in the streets of Paris. This is pretty easy sports almanac stuff and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful at wikipedia. I didn't make this guideline, in fact I voted against it, but once an agreement is reached we work as a team to incorporate it and move on to more important issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to interfere on your personal conversation I just want to note when things got derailed. One is the precedent thing. I still want this Sharapova article to disappear but does not want to close the season-notability debate with an AfD whether we agree in something here or not. Fyunck(click) said somewhere here that this was discussed before in the AfD of Roger Federer's articles but I've never seen it before. What I'm getting at is that many editors will not be aware that this AfD is ongoing and thus setting up a precedent on this will have other non-voting editors excluded. I'm happy that Dirtlawyer1 brought it to WP:Notability but the precedent thing has to go. Otherwise if we are at law comparisons what Fyunck(click) said about this being a long-time routine and nobody objected despite being asked to could be considered an Implied-in-fact contract and thus a precedent. I'm not a lawyer but let just things happen their own way and not by passing this AfD and getting all "2013 Sharapova was deleted and this and that should be too based on it".Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lajbi, it's not really a private conversation when you're having it in a very public forum, so there's no need to apologize. All civil, good-faith comments are welcomed by this editor. Technically, nothing is a "precedent" in AfD except the written notability guidelines and other applicable policies and guidelines such as BLP; that is to say, every individual AfD stands on its own on a case-by-case basis. When I say that I am concerned about setting a "precedent," some members of WP Tennis clearly believe that the WP Tennis internal "guideline" is already a binding precedent on WP Tennis members as well as others, even though it obviously conflicts with the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I am also concerned that just as WP Tennis got leveraged into accepting these single-season articles three or four years ago by two or three overly enthusiastic editors who were creating them (which both Wolbo and Fyunck opposed at the time), that the existence of these articles will become the de facto standard for all sports on Wikipedia. I have already spoken with long-time administrators, editors and organizers of WP Baseball, WP Basketball, WP College basketball, WP College football, WP Football, WP Golf, WP NFL, WP Swimming and WP Olympics, and I can now say that no other sports WikiProject has sanctioned or permitted anything like these single-season articles for individual athletes, let alone for every season/year of an individual athlete's entire career. Not one -- except WP Tennis, that is. In fact, most of the experienced editors were slightly shocked by the idea. Barring some sort of compromise, accepted by WP Tennis, I think that it's probably going to be necessary to file a formal Request for Comments (RfC) at WP:NSPORTS to impose a single-season standard for all sports, including WP Tennis. Of course, all editors would be invited to participate in such an RfC, not just WP Tennis members and not just other sports editors, with RfC notices posted on every relevant talk page and WikiProject, and I would expect 40-50 participants in such an RfC based on recent past experience. I think that's going to be the only way this gets resolved on a semi-permanent basis -- it's a rare AfD that attracts more than 10-15 participants, and they only have any value as a "precedent" if the losing side accepts the logic of the AfD consensus going forward. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is all welcome by me and is on a good track but (as always ) one minor note. You are reversing the events. Please stay with me on this. You said "other sports WikiProject has sanctioned or permitted anything like these". Now the fact is you don't need a permission of any sort to create an article on Wikipedia. So some editors started to create Federer-affiliated articles and WP:TENNIS just tried to sanction them at least. The intent wasn't to create guidelines or to encourage it but to keep it on track. What Fyunck(click) tries to do now despite the fact that he had previously voted against it is to save editors' hard work, which is a victim of others' long years ignorance. Editors are unaware that they could become a target of setting a higher scale example. I was a bit shocked myself when I read below that this article was AfD-d after four hours of existence. Still the article fails on my standards but it would have been luckier if the first (of many to come?) nominations had reached one of the Federer articles that spawned those season articles afterwards. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Vencin (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vencin: When !voting in an AfD, it is customary to state your reasons if you want others to take your opinion seriously. DO you have any reasons based on Wikipedia policy or the notability guidelines to offer? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone at WP:TENNIS is trying to argue that the notability guidelines there supersede GNG. It's merely being pointed out that someone who has won a grand slam will always receive prominent media coverage and thus will satisfy GNG, in the same way that other season articles exit for team sports. The reason, say, that footballers do not merit individual articles, is that they never receive any individual coverage unlike tennis players as they always compete as part of a team and their performances are covered in the season articles. As for the debates over GNG here, there is a clear difference between a summary of results at a tournament and examining the individual perfromance of a player at a tournament. The latter article here clearly contributes to GNG as it looks at part of Sharapova's performance in 2013 which contributes to her overall season. If you actually want a full article chronicling her performance from January to November then these will be few and far between. But if this is the guideline that people expect then literally thousands of team articles will have to go. For example, you will never find a season summary for clubs in the fourth tier of English football, but they merit season articles as their results and performances are covered in the press each week. The same logic applies here. Sharapova's performances throughout the year are consistently covered in the press which collectively contribute to her overall season. Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Username of a generic kind," there is a clear distinction to be drawn between association football at any level and tennis. Association football is a team sport; tennis at its highest level is a sport of individual professionals. Association football success is defined by a team winning or losing individual games; those individual games are not covered by stand-alone Wikipedia articles because most individual games mean very little (allowing only for rare exceptions). Tennis success is defined by the tournament performance of individual tennis players; individual tournaments are covered by stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and the standout performance of individual tennis players in those tournaments should be covered in those stand-alone tournament articles, tracking the way the mainstream sports media covers the sport. In-depth coverage of individual "seasons" or "years" of individual tennis players is not typical of the way the mainstream sports media covers the sport; that's why editors who support keeping this particular article are having a difficult time finding significant coverage of Sharapova's 2013 season in multiple, independent, reliable sources. While I allow for the exceptional season/year, granting any player who has ever won a Grand Slam event a separate, stand-alone article for every year of their career before and after winning a single Grand Slam is a slightly bizarre concept, and violates everything I know about Wikipedia notability requirements for stand-alone article subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: It's indeed defensible to claim that a Grand Slam season has been covered as a season enough to satisfy the GNG. So what? In the entire history of tennis, there've been exactly six Grand Slams in singles' competition taking place within a calendar year. The premise that individual tennis "seasons" could be presumptively notable because one player has an individual Grand Slam within a single year every dozen years or so is nonsense.
Beyond that, I have a simple challenge for you: you think that, say, Sharapova's year as a year is discussed in "significant detail" in reliable sources? Great. Prove it. Ravenswing 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a misunderstanding here regarding the term 'Grand Slam'. You are using it in the classical sense of winning the four Grands Slam tournaments or Majors in one calender year while in my perception others are referring to it as winning a Grand Slam tournament. Regarding your challenge, WP:N mentions 'significant coverage' and 'in detail' but not 'significant detail' so let's not move the goalpost here. In my view WP:GNG of the topic and article is currently met with the references it has.--Wolbo (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolbo, I don't speak for Ravenswing, but I will stipulate that I am referring to the four Grand Slam events, not winning an actual Grand Slam, i.e., all four major events in a single year. As for "significant coverage" vs. "in detail," you can argue the point, but I expect to see more than a trivial or WP:ROUTINE mention of the "2013 season" or "Sharapova's 2013 year," and something that actually resembles discussion and analysis of her 2013 season and its importance to her career. Relying on trivial mentions, rather than detailed coverage is not what GNG requires. Otherwise, I could stitch together a notability argument for half or more of the college athletes in America, and a lot of American high school jocks, too, because thousands of them get WP:ROUTINE coverage in coverage of sports events. Remember: it's the notability of Sharapova's 2013 season that's being considered here, and the burden is on those supporting the keep position to produce and explain by reference to such coverage how the GNG notability standard is satisfied. The floor is yours, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing the goalposts at all. The "classic" definition of a Grand Slam as winning all four majors in a single year is the only definition that has anything to do with a single season. Winning a single Grand Slam tournament, however noteworthy that is in its own right, doesn't confer especial notability on the calendar year. Every year those tournaments are held, and every year someone wins them.
Aside from that, to quote from WP:N, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail ..." Snarky weasel wording is uncivil and does your argument no good. Ravenswing 05:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The goalpost reference was not related to the term Grand Slam. There I was merely trying to avoid confusion by pointing out that in my opinion in your post (" It's indeed defensible to claim that a Grand Slam season has been covered as a season enough to satisfy the GNG. ...") you are interpreting the term Grand Slam in a way that is different to those whom you are responding to. That's all. Regarding WP:N, if you use that notability guideline as part of your 'challenge' then the onus is on you to do so correctly. Your requirement of 'significant detail' has no basis in WP:N and the quote you posted only confirms that. 'Coverage' and 'detail' are not synonymous so neither are 'significant coverage' and 'significant detail'. One is stricter than the other so in that regard you are indeed moving the goalpost and your attempt to deflect from that by hurling an insult my way is unwarranted.--Wolbo (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: Whilst it isn't really relevant to this discussion, it is worth noting that most association football games which result in success of some sort, e.g. cup finals, almost always do end up with a stand-alone wikipedia article. But anyway, that isn't the point to be made here. You still seem to be ignoring the point I'm making on sources. By your logic, we can't have an article on Maria Sharapova unless there is significant coverage of her life as a whole from birth until present day. That would, of course, be nonsense. What we have are several sources which collectively build up to give a picture of her life. The same is true here, we have several sources which collectively build up to give a picture of her 2013 season. This coverage is clearly far above anything a college athlete would achieve over a season.
@Ravenswing: As Wolbo clarified, I was referring to Grand Slam in the sense that there are four grand slams a year. If you look at all my posts on this Afd you will see that I have provided several sources showing that this article passes GNG. Please take some time to look at them. Username of a generic kind (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something that stands out for me is the second paragraph of the lead. It basically says that this particular season was an unimportant season within her career. Absent a whole lot of sourcing indicating that the season was important because it wasn't important, and I'm pretty sure that's absent, the page becomes an exercise in WP:NOT. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I noted elsewhere, [36], there is the issue of whether secondary sources indicate that this particular season stands out relative to other seasons that she has had, or whether the coverage of this particular season is what one expects for a typical season of a highly notable athlete. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ranked the number 2 player in the world which is a factor, despite (controversial non-guideline essay) INHERIT. GNG satisfied with 4 sources, though a couple more would be good. If editors want to work on this article don't see any reason to deny them. Give it some room and time to develop. @Dpickwick: has been actively expanding this article as recently as 10 days ago, though the AfD nom put a sudden stop to that work. -- GreenC 04:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the AfD occurred less than 4 hours after article creation. If not breaking some technical rule, it certainly seems ridiculous and it seemingly put a chill on further development by the creator. -- GreenC 04:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though the article passes GNG, it's still an unnecessary content fork. p b p 22:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." I can understand arguments for either keeping or deleting. However, a similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career resulted in a delete, with consensus being that a standalone article on a cross-section of a player's career is not automatically justified just because extensive coverage may exist. Without indication that this is a topic with long-term notability beyond fancruft, I'd lean towards delete. As this article is currently mostly stats, and the main article section at Maria_Sharapova#2013:_Continued_success.2C_return_of_shoulder_injury is already well developed, I see no reason to merge.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 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 speedy delete. Unambiguous A7. Anyone is welcome to re-create as redirect if appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priceline HK[edit]

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

Just another website. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with RHaworth. The page has been previously deleted twice via speedy deletion. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails web notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7: "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Priceline.com. The company information states they are connected to both Priceline.com and Hutchison Whampoa. Given they use the Priceline name, a redirect to that article might be appropriate? Thanks, PNGWantok (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn per improvements and WP:HEY. WP:SNOW says the rest as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Gupta (businessman)[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. Although they have recieved some coverage, it isn't up to the level of WP:GNG. A Google search, both on .com and .co.in reveal nothing much that appears to help show notability. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) withdrawn --Mdann52talk to me![reply]

Keep He has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources per WP:BASIC. In addition to the several references already in the aticle suchas Business Standard and Indian Express, see, e.g., The Hindu Businessline and Economic Times. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like sports players and actors and actresses, business people get mentioned in news articles with great frequency, which seems to skew the impression of notability. We need a clear(er) policy on what makes a business person notable. It is the job of business papers and magazines to report on these people, just like it is the job of movie mags to fill their pages with mentions of every actor they can find. Usually the articles are short and rather light-weight. It's not that people doing these jobs are more notable, it's that we pay more attention to them. I'd like to see criteria that would help us determine what makes a business and a business person notable that goes beyond this kinds of routine reporting. LaMona (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to @LaMona: We don't have any policy or guideline on what determines notability of a certain kind of people, except for professors. The criteria listed in WP:BIO are inclusive criterias, not exclusive ones. In other words, a person who meets one of the additional citeria in WP:BIO may probably qualify an article, and he may still qualify one if he fails any of the additional citeria but he has sufficient media coverage. (I have seen some people mistake additional citeria as exclusive citeria, maybe you are one of them.) There was a time when we made guidelines on what makes a certain kind of people notable, based on their fame or success. (See this version of WP:BIO.) But it is no longer the case since we have WP:GNG.
  - Moving forward, your argument that business people get mentioned in news articles with great frequency is not supported by evidence. (Actually, we only have 3424 pages in this category. (Category:American_businesspeople))Even if it's true, it just means business people are inherently more notable than other topics. From time to time, we delete articles of large shopping malls or major streets. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Shopping malls/archive) Although they are of importance in a way, they don't belong to wikipedia for few reliable sources cover them. The same logic applies to bussiness people. Some of them are not that important, but they can still be included in wikipedia once major national media begins to cover them.
    - But anyway, being a CEO of a major company does qualify WP:ANYBIO.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 02:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 02:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At a very lower level it meets the general notability guideline. References from Indian Express and above mentioned by @24.151.10.165: is third party reliable references. CutestPenguin (Talk) 09:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CEO of what is apparently a major company (we need an article on the company also, I think). DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meets WP:GNG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently written about (sometimes in depth) in multiple reliable news sources. I'm not entirely sure what has happened since last week, it seems to have been 'cleaned-up' and several other sources (and key info) removed. To be honest this article wasn't an easy one to monitor because of the issues COI editor, but that's not a reason for deletion either. Sionk (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the history, the major contributor is named Sanjayrgupta48. So it could possibly be an autobiography. Romtam^TalkToMe 13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: He's blocked. The lastest entry in his log block is "16:38, August 25, 2014 Nick (talk | contribs) blocked Sanjayrgupta48 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Spam / advertising-only account: username block, not Sanjay Gupta, self admitted paid SEO staff)" Romtam^TalkToMe 13:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article cleaned up already. Didn't notice that before. Romtam^TalkToMe 13:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Romtam: I was about to drop a message

. CutestPenguin (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Upjav (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annette W. Coleman[edit]

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

It looks like Annette W. Coleman doesn't meet the notability requirements for academics, and is just a researcher and professor at Brown, which doesn't suffice for Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). Upjav (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Didn't do sufficient research into importance of Annette W. Coleman and the votes on this AfD discussion has changed my view. Upjav (talk) 19:43, 24 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find evidence that this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a highly cited researcher, satisfying WP:NACADEMICS #1. In addition, she holds a named professorship at Brown University, satisfying WP:NACADEMICS #5. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 14:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although this person does occupy a named chair position, the article still needs to be beefed up. Both "references" are to the same Brown University Web page, which says almost nothing. To see a better example, Johanna Schmitt also held this position, and her article is quite a bit more informative. However, it appears that Coleman herself does not provide much information on her own background, so it may not be possible to find further information. Not every academic is interested in being notable; and it would be a shame to lose an article about a very productive female biologist. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gdfusion. BTW, seems to have originated at a Brown 2014 write-a-thon. Needs improvement. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #C1 and #C5 as above. Sadly, the quality of sourcing is actually very typical for successful ivy-league named-chair professors. For some reason our media don't write as much about them as they do about reality-show contestants and one-game-walk-on athletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) and other criteria as well, as noted above – endowed professorship at Brown. Has an h-index of 38 on GS.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF, in particular # 1, and endowed chair at Brown.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per gdfusion and passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 23:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin MacDonald[edit]

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

Does not have the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG and falls short of the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. In addition to playing pro hockey for 8 years, MacDonald is an Austrian league champion, and a reality TV contestant who won season two of the Canadian reality TV series Making the Cut: Last Man Standing. Many significant and independent articles in English can be found about him due to his three seasons with the Rochester Americans of the AHL, and also about his success with the Making the Cut TV show. Many German-language sources exist which provide significant and independent coverage about him during his six years with EHC Linz of the Österreichische Eishockey-Liga, including their championship 2011-12 season. Dolovis (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will retract my nomination if anyone can show he has had significant coverage. But all I can find are trivial mentions and routine sports coverage. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As is frequently the case with hockey-related AfDs, Dolovis makes claims of sources which he then declines to produce. Obviously MacDonald's modest hockey career fails any relevant criteria of WP:NHOCKEY, and no other sources proffered go beyond coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE. Highbeam and Google Newspapers searches turns up a couple sports-transaction bulletpoints, Questia turns up bupkis. There is nothing about being a reality show contestant that overrides the GNG, something well established by precedent at AfD ... and in any event, WP:V requires that sources be produced, or that an article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ravenswing's request that that sources be produced: in addition to the significant and independent source already listed within the article.[37], other significant and independent sources are also easily found including [38], and [39]. I could find more if I were to search for hard-copy or German-language sources, but since GNG requires only two such sources, the three articles linked here are enough demonstrate that this player meets the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swear to heaven, we keep doing this dance. For the umpteenth time, how about some sources with a proven reputation for fact checking, as the GNG requires, instead of obscure hockey blog sites? Newspaper articles? Magazine articles? You claim there are significant articles concerning his days in Rochester. Where are they? You claim there are German-language sources discussing him in detail. Where are they? Unless you provide them at once, we can only conclude that this is just another in a very long string of deletion debates where you have made bald claims of sources that didn't actually exist. Ravenswing 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cape Breton Post is a small paper from his home town. It has more significant coverage of some AA high school athletes. The other two references don't seem reliable at all. I've searched Google news archives and Highbeam and can't find anything significant. I'm still not seeing the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and other coverage is routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in line with WP:NHOCKEY. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:50, 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, Tawker (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katawa Shoujo[edit]

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

Independent "visual novel" video game. Lacks notability.

Most of the references are to things like the dev blog of the developers.

One Kotaku citation. Kotaku however is a very trashy tabloid style group blog.

gamesetwatch news piece. I am not too familliar with that site. May be another group blog.

In addition, I can find two reviews:

Screw Attack - Under the "blog" section and not a formal review section.

Escapist Magazine - This probably counts

I think that there are too few reliable sources discussing this to establish notability for this indie game. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Eeeeh, with the amount of stuff I have read about this game (which lead me to actually play it recently), I have a hard time coming to the conclusion it is not notable. I can't look at the links directly since I'm at work and I can't be bothered to bypass their firewall, but according to WP:VG/S there are plenty of coverage in reliable sources

Kotaku is reliable for posts after 2010.
GameSetWatch is also reliable
Screw Attack can be used for opinions and reviews per per WP:VG/S
Escapist is, as you said, definitely reliable
IndieGames review
Rock, Paper, Shotgun review
Technology Tell article (this one is not on WP:VG/S but looks good anyways).

So, plenty of significant coverage in reliable media sources. Subject comfortable passes WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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) 19:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawal recommended. The sites in the nom (save for perhaps Screw) are vetted at WP:VG/RS. That with Sal's sources put it past the GNG. Should something else be done with it (merge into something else) if the coverage is not substantial? That's a conversation for outside AfD. czar ♔ 22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and WP:BEFORE wasn't followed properly here. A simple Google search would've shown that a large number of sources exist, such as

http://indiegames.com/2012/01/four_leaf_studios_katawa_shouj.html
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/04/4chan_group_releases_eroge_dem.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/128886/This_week_in_video_game_criticism_From_proceduralism_to_Katawa_Shoujo.php
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/10/impressions-katawa-shoujo/
http://www.gamesradar.com/14-dating-sims-break-all-romantic-barriers/
http://www.theaureview.com/games/reviews/pc/katwa-shoujo-four-leaf-studios-2012
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/unexpected-sincerity-disabilities-girls-and-katawa-shoujo/
http://kotaku.com/5905626/that-game-about-dating-disabled-girls-is-excellent-and-you-should-play-it
http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/133218/dont-get-upset-katawa-shoujo-sequel/
http://www.vg247.com/2012/01/05/katawa-shoujo-out-now/
http://www.avclub.com/article/march-5-2012-70201

To name a few. WP:GNG is easily passed here. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points. There is significant third party coverage from reliable sources and easily passes WP:GNG. Green Runner 0 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salv's and Satellizer's source hunting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG was already met, but the sources listed here are enough to take the article to it GA. Developer notes are important for a certain aspect, but they do not conifer notability - so there is no N or GNG issue to be found. WP:BEFORE next time, please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 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 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imulan BioTherapeutics[edit]

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

Promotion of a small biomed company. Primary sources only; tagged since 2008 Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found one reliable source in news searches ([40]) and passing mentions in GBooks searches. From what is ascertainable from paywalled GScholar results, appears to have received passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. Appears to not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only coverage of the firm that I am finding via Highbeam is local start-up coverage from 2008-9 of them taking space in a business incubator at St. Joseph's. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, none asserting delete. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likhaan[edit]

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

It is hard to judge the notability of this organisation, especially as there is also a journal of the same name and most sources are probably not in English. This does not have an article in Tagalog or any other language. I found coverage showing it exists, and added references, but I couldn't find much more. This has been tagged for notability for over six years, so no other editors have been able to establish notability either. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some independent sources from books, newspapers and notable organizations about Likhaan. To be fair to the nominator, it is indeed very hard to find refs for this article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Brilliant work, User:Lenticel, thank you, Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:AIRCRASH, IT JUST ISN'T NOTABLE AS ANOTHER CARGO AIRCRAFT CRASH with no lasting consequences or changes to procedures, regulations etc. etc., no notable fatalities, no special cargo, absolutely nothing notable!! Petebutt (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable cargo crash....William 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, it simply is not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although only an essay and not actually a guideline or policy WP:AIRCRASH is a statement of WikiProject Aviation, which advises the inclusion of crash articles which meet three criteria: (1) human fatality AND (2) hull loss AND (3) lasting importance in the form of changes to airline policies and procedures, etc. It also intimates that military crashes are to be presumed less noteworthy than civilian crashes. I think the advice of the work group as to what constitutes "ordinary" catastrophes (i.e., falling afoul of WP:NOTNEWS) and what constitutes a noteworthy event is helpful. If some sort of lasting significance on Russian aviation could be demonstrated, I could easily be flipped. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 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. Per BIODEL Wifione ^Message 08:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besa Kabashi-Ramaj[edit]

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

I don't see anything that shows lasting nobility. She is effectively a government advisor who purpotedly wrote journal articles, but google scholar shows nothing. The major source for this article is her linkedin profile. Gbawden (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no presence in academic databases towards WP:PROF. Searching multiple SERPs deep, including in Albanian and Serbian pages, yielded a few quotes by her but no coverage of her that would satisfay WP:BIO.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:10, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Niblock[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:Notability (people) or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant reliable sources about him. LaMona (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was a bit surprised to find basic information about several people with this name. None of them seems notable, including this particular one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 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. Wifione ^Message 08:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Harms[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this were to be kept, a lot more needs to be added. It is almost so short as to be nothing more than a listing. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 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 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been around since March, 2008, and yet has only 3 sentences and no third-party sources. One source is the WP article for the Globe and Mail (unrelated to topic of article) and one is for the series this person directed. LaMona (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage of this male actor/filmmaker, and actually found more about a female novelist of the same name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Positivism. Wifione ^Message 08:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Positive science[edit]

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

The article is failing WP:DICTIONARY. Content could possibly belong to the article of Descriptive science. However, there is nothing else than a dictionary-like definition. Previously proposed to be deleted by @Loodog: on the article's talk page in June 2011. Ceosad (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to positivism, which treats the same subject in more depth and breadth. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to positivism as per Qwertyus.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 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 redirect to Ice Cream (2014 film)#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Cream 2[edit]

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

Filming has not begun yet according to sources, too soon for an article per WP:NFF, redirect is a viable option to Ice Cream (2014 film) BOVINEBOY2008 00:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per Bovineyboy. Article fails WP:GNG.--Janavar (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect to Ice_Cream_(2014_film)#Sequel, but leave the history. I can't see where principal filming has yet commenced, but it seems like it will be soon. In any case, I figure leaving the history intact will give us something to pull from if/when more coverage comes about. It seems likely that it'll release and get more coverage, but cinema is full of films that stalled at various pre-production stages so redirect for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like filming has completed, but it's still slightly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete or Redirect, this movie is going to release next month on 19 September 2014, less than one month. This is a fast track movie, even it's sequel 'Ice Cream 3' starting on 15th September. I don't think it is too early as you guys say. --User:Varmapak 11.30, 23 August 2014

The good thing about redirects is that in most cases the history is left behind. This means that when the movie does get more coverage, we can un-redirect it and not lose a thing. The thing is, we can't guarantee that the film will release next month, as delays happen all the time. We also can't guarantee that it'll gain coverage per WP:CRYSTAL. Redirecting it is the best option here for the most part. For what it's worth, I do think that the movie will gain coverage enough to warrant a redirect so for now just be patient. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Ice_Cream_(2014_film). CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:20, 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 00:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Cream (2014 film) as 19 days away yet, Don;t see much point merging as in 19 days time this'll simply be redirected back .... Too much kerfuffle imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice Cream (2014 film). The film is not notable yet. However, the redirect can easily be undone should it ever become notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:28, 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.