Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 August	24 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Ged UK 13:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Sea (band)[edit]

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

Believe that they fail WP:BAND, non notable. Gbawden (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nomination. Most references I could find are for band's own tumbler and instagram accounts. AlanS (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy due to them being completely insignificant. AlanS (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a top 20 hit on the Australian iTunes chart is "completely insignificant". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it's almost too soon for an article, but the band seems to scrape into criteria #2 of WP:NMUSIC by having a top 5 hit in Australia. My only concern is the source specified is not an official Apple one, and Australian chart stats are not my area of expertise. One news source suggests the EP hit the top 20. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes charts are not WP:GOODCHARTS and are not Australia's national charts. That would be ARIA charts. No pass on #2. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline only gives a brief passing mention to iTunes and says very little on what the problem is. Are the charts made up? Are their methods of calculation impossible to ascertain? Do they have charts for just about anything and are completely indiscriminate? Or something else? I'd quite like to know the answer to this, as bands seem to be increasingly citing iTunes charts all over the place. It must mean something, the question is - what? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little independent coverage, and the cited chart is not acceptable. However, it would have preferable to leave that ref in during the deletion discussion.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, this may be a suitable candidate for the draft namespace. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent source (not the unreliable one discussed earlier) published yesterday suggests the EP hit number one in Australia. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per significant coverage in The Music and in the Penrith City Gazette. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have they got three references or not? If they have then keep, but I think the refs are all from the same "source", so get rid. Jodosma (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed three references. I don't understand what you mean "from the same 'source'"... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and contains only information from other articles - for instance, information regarding Nevermore Tree is already sufficiently covered in The Vile Village. If any content is not already duplicated in relevant articles, it should be moved there, but I cannot see anything notable that is not already covered in other articles.

Although A Series of Unfortunate Events is notable and so are the 13 books in the series (as well as TUA and TBL), notability is not inherited. I believe the article is "listcruft", as it is of interest to very few people. Similarly, an article on locations in the series has previously been deleted. Per WP:OSE, the fact that Fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events exists at this time is not a reason to keep this article, although a separate discussion may be warranted for whether that article is worth keeping.

There are no sources outside of those to the series, and therefore no established notability of flora as a relevant topic within ASOUE. The sources to other books seem to be there solely because of allusions made within the books to those works (e.g. green lumber - Green Mansions). There are a theoretically infinite number of potential ways of grouping things within ASOUE (e.g. characters with at least six letters in their middle name), but lists should not be created for all of them. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent nomination. This article consists of nothing but plot summary sourced almost entirely to the work itself. There's no end to the number of plot summary articles that could be written with the focus on this or that fictional element. Most of these are not suitable for WP articles, and this one also is not. Reyk _YO! 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Flora of Shakespeare, sure, because reliable sources exist. Absent sources, I don't see any hope of establishing notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:00, 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Jørgen G. Gundersen[edit]

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

Couldn't establish notability. It's harder as he is Danish, but no Danish-lang article either. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, time for it to be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me seems a clear keep. GS indicates very highly cited academic (eg: Gundersen, H. J. G. (1986). Stereology of arbitrary particles*. Journal of microscopy, 143(1), 3-45. 1500 citations). Mentioned in the timeline in our article on Stereology. A conference Future Stereology - In Honour of Hans Jørgen G. Gundersen here: http://thiele.au.dk/events/conferences/2007/futurestereology/. Also recipient of Novo Nordisk Prize http://www.novonordiskfonden.dk/en/content/novo-nordisk-prize. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The career corpus is substantive. There is enough evidence of impact as regards multiple highly-cited papers, albeit in what may be a relatively highly cited field.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks for all your input, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Murdock (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. It has no reliable sources, despite being tagged for notability for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let this page stay. He's a talented voice actor and has done voice work in a lot of cartoons that are recorded in Vancouver. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, how talented or prolific he is is irrelevant to his notability (see WP:ILIKEIT). Jinkinson talk to me 21:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rtkat3, I believe you are the creator, do you have any reliable sources to support your claim that he meets WP:ENT? Which section of WP:ENT do you feel he meets? Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As Rtkat3 pointed out, he passes WP:ENTERTAINER. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:FilmandTVFan28, do you have any reliable sources to support your claim that he meets WP:ENT? Which section of WP:ENT do you feel he meets? Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the next question, I feel that he meets sections 1 and 3 of WP:ENT. He has made a lot contributions for cartoons in North America and around the world. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT requires that the assertion is supported by a reliable source — no number of film or television roles, not even a million, passes ENT if the article is unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing any sources posted here, and I haven't found any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by others, it doesn't have any sources. Honestly, the article isn't very encyclopedic either. It's basically a listing of every movie he's been in... that's an IMDB page, not a wikipedia article. BMIComp 04:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An actor does not automatically pass WP:ENTERTAINER just because you can list roles that he's played — it's a function of the quality of reliable sources that can or cannot be added to support the assertion. But there's not a single source here that supports an article (the existence of a page on IMDb does not count as sourcing.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if actual sourcing starts showing up, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 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. WP:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gullands Solicitors[edit]

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

There's a few hits here from the local papers (the Kent Messenger) but passing the GNG requires more broader and deeper coverage; the BBC story only mentions them. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable solicitor business involved in compensation claims. The BBC story just has a generic quote on car parks. The website detailing their history is too badly written to be used as an RS. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 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) 17:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuri Fujita[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. TV personality. Clearly not notable. scope_creep talk 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Scope creep:This person has even gained some coverage in Chinese sources. ([1][2][3]) WP:ENT is irrelevant, since she appears to meet WP:BASIC. In my own view, WP:ENT C2 might be met.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the Korean sources in the article, plus the Chinese ones shown above, there are also Japanese sources as well: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11],[12], etc. Here are even some English sources: [13], [14], etc. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:35, 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) Ansh666 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace[edit]

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

Article about reality star which fails WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. Seems to have no notability. Z list reality star, appearing as a guest star since she appeared on Big Brother. Only link to tenuous notability appears to be TV series, which was 3 episodes, and then cancelled. Also appears to be an actress (guest star or extra) on Serial Kaller, which fails WP:ENT. She is no more notable that the average film extra or tv guest star. scope_creep talk 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actress and television personality without significant coverage or achievements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the contrary, the article does cite significant coverage to get it past WP:BASIC. "Significant coverage" means that the topic is covered directly and in detail, not that the topic is significant.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Show me evidence. What significant coverage are you talking about? scope_creep talk 17:11 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It contains forty eight sources.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of sources does not donate notability. An examiniation of each of the source seem to show trivial claims of notability. scope_creep talk 20:10 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is what I exactly oppose to. Again, "non-trivial coverage" means that the coverage itself must be in-depth, not that the coverage shows the subject is important. Even if the coverage in any of these sources is not substantial, numerous sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The nominator's argument is not in line with WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, maybe WP:TRIVIAL, needless to say. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This woman has over 500 articles on her coming up in Highbeam - mainly in the lowest common denominator press, but ongoing coverage from 2006 through to 2013. Although there are clumps there, she does get a namecheck and/or quite a few words on her every few weeks. Some of it, from a quick search, is from inherited notability, such as being a friend of Amy Winehouse (around the time of AW's death). But she's appeared in at least three reality TV programmes as a contestant and is obviously someone who the LCD press think we should be interested in. I'll also note that she gets mentions in a number of books, including serious ones like Class and Contemporary British Culture. I'm not unsympathetic to the nominator, and yeah, it's depressing, but I think Aisleyne totally passes GNG with coverage over a eight year period (that is still ongoing). Mabalu (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as been in notable shows, Passes WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:18, 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 Consensus to delete. Chillum 01:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Sperling[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable independent of vFlyer (if found non-notable, may be worth a redirect to vFlyer). Has been tagged for notability for over six years; tome for it to be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor businessman without any clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears non-notable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see that the coverage available is enough to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. SmileBlueJay97 talk 18:03, 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 redirect to Star Trek fandom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Command (fan group)[edit]

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

Not enough evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over six years; time for it to be resolved. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STARFLEET Command. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Star Trek fandom. I found a few trivial mentions ([15], [16], [17]), but none of them actually describe the fan club itself. They just mention that it exists. Google Books seems to return mostly excerpts from novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I guess a redirect is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Trek fandom, since it is a real club, just there is no notable coverage. Frmorrison (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that would be OK, too, but I doubt anyone will do a search for this title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Trek fandom - I don't think it's a likely search term either but I think its inclusion in the Starfleet Command disambig page is of some value. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Trek fandom per NinjaRobotPirate, Frmorrison and Stalwart111 SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:40, 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. Ged UK 13:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Melikiotis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a club in a fully pro league. However, since he has not actually played, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has never played a fully professional game, only youth team games therefore fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he hasn't, he signed his professional contract few months ago, how's that even possible? Give it some time, he will debut. For the love of god, the article is good. Sources exists and it is completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanosBonJovi (talk • contribs)
Delete all, for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Claiming they might be notable in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 08:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - They haven't played in a Fully professional league & they don't have international caps therefore they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per nom. Fails football GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daljit Ami[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:N CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the current article is poorly sourced, but regular searches found this filmmaker spoken of in The Hindu, Economic and Political Weekly, Hindu Bussiness Line, a few books and Google scholar mentions and, per Indian English Newspaper Custom Search Engine found at WP:INDAFD, Daljit Ami looks to meet WP:BIO. So who wishes to add more sources? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: you are quite experienced at least more than me on Wikipedia, but the ULRs that you have mentioned above does not have significant coverage. You have mentioned above that this filmmaker spoken of ..., but I am unable to find even a single line about him at Economic & Political Weekly except under the images captions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep per meeting WP:Notability (people) Needs work, not deletion. Note: @Cutest Penguin: looking beyond negative results, I also offered searches through Indian English Newspaper Custom Search Engine found at WP:INDAFD, a very handy tool as proper part of WP:BEFORE for Indian topics for those who actually use it. I easily found he and his film-work philosophy discussed in Tribune India [18][19][20][21] and The Hindu[22][23] and Hindustan Times [24] and Times of India [25] and further, his background is verified in Tribune India[26] and Business Line [27] and his work as a journalist represented in Outlook India [28][29] (and there are many more) The man meets WP:BIO through WP:CREATIVE. In the future, I would suggest a deeper search or your requesting assistance from others before nominating Indian films or filmmakers for deletion. They can be sometimes difficult to source yes, but WP:NRVE for this person has been provided. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Without responding to my keep above, the nominator has instead just tagged the article for copyvio he asserts of some portions of tutorgigpedia, yatedo.fr and nyanglish.com My question is just which portions are asserted as copyvio, and why can't they simply be removed for this notable person? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is copyright violation on the article. I am surprised to see that that admin, @MichaelQSchmidt: did a lot of online research in finding several references (what if some of them not working even) and I appreciate him for this act but in other hand he failed to notice copyvio. CutestPenguin (Talk) 08:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Badly written and in need of better sourcing yes, but NO copyvio. Shame on you for claiming it is or accusing me of not. Are you unaware that sources outside Wikipedia often use us as a source? You claim the information in tutorgigpedia is a copyvio, when if you actually looked you would see THEY copied from us. Worse, yatedo.fr is a malware site in French and nyanglish.com's did a check of the phrase "known for his activism" showing it also taking from Wikipedia, not the other way round. THAT ain't copyvio Penguin. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @MichaelQSchmidt: calm down, and assume some good faith. Penguin is a reletively new editor, and it is a fair assumption that he was unaware of what a mirror is, so it is far better to point that out, than being hostile towards a new editor. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just dropped him a note about mirrors on his talk page. Zhaofeng Li removed the invalid tag. Penguin could one day be a fine editor... he just needs to slow his roll a bit. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:Daljit Ami#CSD removed. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Just to let you know, all those many links I posted work just fine. However, it might be that your PC pickled up a bug from the yatedo.fr malware site. I hope not, but maybe run yourself a Malwarebytes scan to check. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Update: What was first nominated was a poorly sourced 964 characters (147 words) article. With issues addressed, the article is now at 3151 characters (505 words). A 3x expansion with far better sourcing than what was brought to my attention. I would hope the nominator and any who visit this discussion and the article agree with me that WP:PEOPLE is met through WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE ( See WP:NRVE ). So folks... WP:HEY? WP:OUTCOMES? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:16, 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 no consensus. An unsatisfying result, like kissing one's sister, but it doesn't look as though a clear consensus is going to form here. I recommend that someone try to track down the English and German sources listed in the article and, if they turn out to lack substantial information about this person, renominating the article. (And if they do contain substantial information, adding inline citations, with titles of specific journal articles, page numbers, etc.) Deor (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. Samuel of Tranquebar[edit]

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

Delete. Completely fails WP:NOTABLE. Article completely unsourced, and therefore violates WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Nothing about this character anywhere on the net as far as I can see, except what refers to this article. Supposed photograph of Samuel in article listed on Wikimedia Commons as 'from family sources' (therefore WP:OR and not verifiable). Not even a suggestion as to what the 'N.' may stand for. Supposed book references on Google (e.g. "Lutheran Theologians") appear to be reprints of this Wikipedia article. May perhaps be a complete hoax. Smerus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In a period when Christian missionary work in India was domonated by white missionaries, being the first Indian professor in a theological college is notable. His list of works, presumably in Tamil (or other Indian languages) is also substantial. Whether the photo is of him or not seems immaterial to me: if it is not, it can be deleted from the article. Since most sources on him will not be in English and there was no Internet (or even computers) in his life, the lack of on-line sources is not surprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this comment does not deal with the fact that the article is totally unsourced, totally uncited, and does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABLE. There was no internet around for the many thousands of historical figures in WP, but that has not prevented there being information about any who were notable by WP standards. Taking the material in the article (which for all we know, or all that can be demonstrated, may be a total fabrication) as read does not provide a justification.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verifiability. We can't even argue about notability until we have reliable sources that can document the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count 16 "references". Many are not very well expressed, in that the cite the journal, not the article. Most are contemporary ones from the subject's lifetime. You do not have access to them, not do I, but the likelihood is that the WP author did. You are expecting standards of sourcing that may be appropriate in Europe or America, but are too high for India of that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the 'references' quoted indeed exist (for which there is no evidence), they fail these criteria. See comment by User:David Eppstein. The issue under discussion here is not Indian standards vs. European standards, but the standards of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did find an online copy of one of the supposed references [30] and linked it from the article. It does include mention of an "N. Samuel". But it's written in German in a difficult font so I wasn't able to get much more than that from it. Maybe someone else who reads German can get more. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Peterkingiron.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did find one of the Books written by the subject in 1922 in Plain talk of a plain Christian and found this page 8 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not WP:HOAX or WP:OR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your source is a transcript form the Wikipedia article and therefore fails WP:RS. Samuel may or may not be a hoax - but if he is WP:NOTABLE how come no one can even find his first name?--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your question about first name is based on a misunderstanding of South Indian naming conventions, in which one often sees names of the form "X. YYY". In names of this form, "YYY" is the individual's given name, and "X." is the initial of the father's given name. So "N. Samuel" would be the proper way to write this person's name, "Samuel" is a given name not a surname, and the question you are really asking is "what was his father's name". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification, but the first name question was by the way, the issue remains notability.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply I agree the link is not WP:RS hence did not add to the article ,just added to say it was not a hoax.Some of his books are available online found one in Google books Plain talk of a plain Christian.The subject died in 1927 and hence most if not all are not available online and in other languages including Tamil Language and it is a kind of Systemic bias Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is one copy of a book by N. Samuel in the British Library and this seems to be the one found by Pharaoh of the Wizards on Google. Unfortunately none of the rest of the article on N. Samuel is verifiable, and a single book in the British Library, without any WP:RS secondary references to support it, fails WP:NOTABLE. It is not a question of systemic bias (of the sort which that rather contentious essay discusses), but one of the absence of encyclopaedically verifiable evidence. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 31 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the current verifiability concerns. If valid sourcing can be found later, I don't see any objecting to reinstating the article at that time. Silverfish8088 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (changing to strong keep per rationale given below) due to numerous mentions in book sources. [31][32][33][34][35]. Although there is nothing in depth there, several authors hint that the person is notable, especially Francis who names him as a successor to Sastriyar. I suspect that a search of Tamil sources or Indian newspaper databases may well find something more substantial. SpinningSpark 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say there is 'nothing in depth here' is a notable understatement. Editors who check these references will find nothing but a name mentioned in passing, with not the slightest relevance to WP:NOTABLE criteria.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a 19th century American poet or a French poet then you couldn't blink faster than I would be typing "delete", but the subject comes from a sub-continent that had no tradition of publishing prior to independence. Sources are going to be an order of magnitude harder to find. On top of that the subject is from a minority language group and the systemic bias here for English language sources makes it another order of magnitude harder. In view of that, I am prepared to cut this one a lot more slack. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I find User:Spinningspark's sources persuasive. See below.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Even stipulating that the sources exist and contain what they describe, I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. There are many things that might be notable (He was the first this (somebody has to be first), he wrote this, he was considered that, etc.) but the article doesn't make their case well enough. - Richfife (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on the new information that has come to light, noted above by Spinning, I do not think it is a complete hoax. That was one of the initial concerns when listed to AfD. Consider tagging up the article expressing concerns regarding verifiable sources. Consider finding a translator to review Tamil language Wikipedia? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. The 'references' found by Spinning scarcely consitute 'new information which has come to light' - as reading them will testify.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Saying that they may have notability simply because their name appears in a few articles does not a notable make. There is nothing that goes into depth on this subject that makes me feel they are notable on their own merits. Tagging this article is not going to miraculously place sources in ones path. If there are none, then there are none. I have searched everywhere and have only come across the ones mention above. Delete away! --Canyouhearmenow 11:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a list of sources in the references section (the first one, not the second one, which should probably be renamed "notes" or somesuch) none of which are available online. They are not inline citatitons, but lack of inline citations are not grounds for deletion. Per the WP:AGF policy, we should assume that these sources do indeed have sufficient depth of coverage until shown that they do not. None of these sources are online and there is no indication whatsoever that any of those calling for deletion on the basis of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline have actually examined these sources. Those !votes should therefore be discounted as not policy based. The nomination suggested this may be a hoax. While there is nothing in depth online, there is sufficient information to show that the subject existed and the cited sources exist in libraries. Come back here after visiting the libraries. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to get a Tamil-speaker to improve it. Tranquebar was a Danish outpost, and the Lutheranism to which he converted was therefore most likely the Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is may well be that in the period in which Samuel lived, sources, the church records - and such histories as have been written of Protestantism in Tharangambadi are in Danish (or in German or in English). Moreover, there is no certainty that the name "Samuel" was spelled "Samuel" a century ago. However, googling the Tamil name given in this article: ஞா.சாமுவேல் produced links in Tamil (a language that I neither read nor speak) However, this one has some English and looks authentic: http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/who-is-gb/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/2010/04/05/about-us/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/5-yesu-en-neysar-sagaayarumaam/ The difficulty of producing articles on the non-Anglophone world is endemic to Wikipedia. Is there a system for contacting a Tamil -speak re: articles of this sort?ShulMaven (talk) 00:12, 8 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 Consensus to delete Fails verifiability and notability requirements. Chillum 01:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International 2014[edit]

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

advertising for a 2014 edition from an event that does not have an article. Effectively unsourced, as facebook is not a suitable source and rappler is not about the pageant itself. The Banner talk 15:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonsense--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax SmileBlueJay97 talk 16:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Night Football (AFL)[edit]

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

Was never a show. Football is played on many days, sometimes on Thursday. These are one off broadcasts that happen to be on a Thursday. Before Good Friday, they use the Friday broadcast team. Other times they use a Saturday or Sunday team. Sometimes it's a Fox Footy broadcast. It is not a TV series. The list of broadcasters, both the people, dates and channels is complete WP:OR and incorrect. The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had originally nominated this article for deletion but I think I used the wrong template. To the user who fixed it up, thanks. Anyway - this only happens about four or five times in a single season and is not regular like Friday or Saturday nights. MasterMind5991 (talk) 00:42, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major wars[edit]

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

A poorly defined creation, mistitled, and easily replaced by any number of lists, including List of wars by death toll. Veggies (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There aren't any clear guidelines as it stands for determining what a "major" war is, and honestly, if we aren't determining that by death toll, I don't see how this could work without getting into OR. (The article as it's currently envisioned certainly is.) If we are determining by death toll, we already have a list. We don't need a second one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm willing to bet there are plenty of papers that list wars based on criteria that aren't death toll, but this list doesn't even describe why these wars are major. A list based on assessment by scholars would take considerable time and effort to compile and would have to start from scratch. mol uɐɯ 21:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't the first time this editor has ignored WP:FIRST. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The simple question is how major is "major"? That is obviously a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. There is no definition of Major. Is it size, length of war, number of causalities, consequences. The Battle of Hastings lasted less than a day, maybe 6000 people died, but it is considered a major war from a historical perspective. The Cold War lasted over 40 years, but no major battles took place directly between the US and USSR, fighting was done by proxy. The Iran-Iraq War lasted eight years, there were hundreds of thousands killed, yet there was no significant change in government or borders as a result. Major in this sense is meaningless. Martin451 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Murray (actor)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been around since 2008 and still lacks references. Has not grown significantly since then but has been tagged more than once for lack of references and content. Seems to be abandoned by any interested authors. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has no references and I couldn't find any. AlanS (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-or on the off chance userfy. But wow-6 years and that's it? (I mean I can understand a article not growing that much in 6 years if its someone that has been dead for a while, ect, but still no refs?) Wgolf (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Okay now I change it to Keep after the expansion! Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable coming up in searches with his last TV appearance seeming to be in a single episode of a 2007 series. Keep on the basis of Paora's upgrade to the article NealeFamily (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has been expanded and referenced. Paora (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like undue weight for such limited notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 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 redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object-oriented SQL[edit]

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

No sources since 2009. The article consists of two sentences and I am actually not sure what they are about. I suggest it be WP:TNT'd. — Keφr 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator actually explain what is wrong with the many sources in GBooks which refer to ""Object-oriented SQL" and "OSQL"? Could the nominator also explain why this can't be redirected to SQL? James500 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this article uses none of them. There is no useful content in this article, it borders on {{db-nocontext}}. Having it as a WP:REDLINK for a while would encourage creation of a better-written article.
Also, where is it established that "Object-oriented SQL" is the same as "OSQL"? Databases do not seem to be your area of expertise. — Keφr 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - This source does appear to say that OSQL is an abbreviation for Object-oriented SQL. It refers to "a prototype object oriented SQL language (OSQL)". James500 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. There isn't a single entity called "Object Oriented SQL", nor is it a particular technique that has been discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. Rather, this is simply a descriptive term that has been used across multiple software projects. For example, SQL:1999 is "characterized as 'object-oriented SQL'", ESQL2 is "an object-oriented SQL with F-Logic semantics", UniSQL's SQIJX is an "object-oriented SQL", etc. Particular implementations may be notable (e.g., IRIS OSQL), but as best I can tell, the topic at hand is not. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases per Lesser Cartographies. James500 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. Deletion in such cases where improvement is required is done by means of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew Davidson. I'm pretty sure the nom hadn't read WP:TNT, as it has to do with rewriting articles, which s/he is not proposing. That being said, the article still has a WP:RS problem in that while several entities have been described as "objected-oriented SQL", I've not been able to find any sources that discuss "Object-oriented SQL" as such. If you're aware of any such WP:RS along those lines, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a general concept rather than a specific implementation. There seem to be numerous sources which discuss various proposals and particular instances - see the books and scholar links above - so I'm not seeing the problem. As for the nominator, they declare, "I am a deletionist ... I have little time for content improvements" and so presumably that's why they propose to destroy rather than improve this page. This is not our general policy though. Andrew (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you've stated the situation better than I did: the topic is indeed a general concept, and I think we agree that we don't (yet) have any WP:RS that discusses the general concept. I don't know how to take the implementation-specific sources we do have and write an article on the general concept without heading off into WP:OR. (There may be a way to do it that I don't know about, which is why I'm asking, not arguing.)

As to Keφr: I rescued his nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC µPD7720 over the weekend, and we've butted heads on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CssQuery. When I started out, I had a few noms here blow up in my face before I figured out what was going on. He's learning (and you're helping him to learn) that WP:TNT should be used sparingly (if ever) as a rationale, and that announcing that one is a deletionist is going to raise opposition regardless of the merits of the argument. All that aside, this kind of article isn't that uncommon, and I'd like your advice in how to deal with this instance and the general case. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. I was unable to find anything like a survey of OOSQL variants. There are prominent examples like SQL/OLB in SQL:2011, Structured types, and to a lesser extent, LINQ. But listing these without an underlying secondary source/survey backing up our opinions would be synthesis on our part. The term is used in the literature and is verifiable, however, so a redirect is warranted. Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases is a reasonable target. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 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) Ansh666 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Saunders[edit]

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

Article of unclear WP:Notability. it fails WP:BASIC and no attempt made to establish its notability. Wikicology (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She absolutely has notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlybman (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a musician with online visibility through self-promotional music sites, but only one third-party reference, which is not enough to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC & WP:MUSICBIO#1 as a suitable search finds significant coverage in independent reliable sources including BBC News [36], the Gazette and Herald [37] and the Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Standard [38]. Qwfp (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Qwfp, Meets MUSICBIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-She seems to be good enough IMO. Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paschal Preston[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability. Has an h-index of 15 on GS.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Preston passes WP:AUTHOR as he has written multiple books that have been reviewed in publications such as the European Journal of Communication and Progress in Human Geography. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF #1 (see google scholar cites above) and WP:AUTHOR (see EricEnfermero note above). Harrison2014 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs cogent formatting. Maybe a bullet point list of his books?PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - please close per all above. Thanks for your contributions, Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamideh Jahangiri[edit]

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

Notability, Also deleted in Persian Wikipedia :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Páez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. Footballer who has not played in a fully professional league. C 679 11:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Good afternoon (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete- He has been loaned to Bologna and surely play for them in the serie b which starts from 30 August. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammanhumagain (talk • contribs) --36.252.113.182 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least for another fortnight ... with the season starting in days, there's no harm in seeing where this player is on the roster. I'd recommend simply not closing the AFD for a couple of weeks Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - He may play soon. At the same time maybe not. WP:CRYSTAL. As of right now he still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Just needs improving to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The invalidity of claims to notability based on potential future appearances is a long standing consensus, repeatedly reaffirmed at afd. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ther is no harm on keeping the article for a month as he is sure to debut for Bologna when the season begins.....--36.252.113.182 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that it violates WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. An example of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria, but WP does not create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played today in Serie B, against Perugia. So now he is notable.Dudek1337 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY he did play in Serie B against Perugia today. Please note this the start of the season and he is most likely to play more games and he is a young player just 20 years.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Everyone who said it did not pass [[WP:FOOTY], he has certainly passed it now and now there is no option rather than keeping the article and improving it!!!! I thik now the debate should be closed as all the criteria is met by the player --36.252.113.182 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:He is mading caps in Italian Serie B which is fully professional

See this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues--Lglukgl (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He obviously meets WP:NSPORT now and probably meets the GNG as well based on very recent news coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - passes WP:NSPORT having played in Serie B (after this discussion started). Not a lot of evidence that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG - a lot of the coverage looks like routine coverage, largely surrounding his loan move to Bologna. Hack (talk) 07:55, 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 speedy delete as WP:G4, per my statement below. I've also salted the article to prevent re-creation and an SPI should probably be opened again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16 Symbols[edit]

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

Startup company, no indication of notability, citations do not refer to company, CSD tag removed by COI editor. GILO A&E⇑ 11:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually speedyable as WP:G4, recreation of an article already deleted at AfD. The new version doesn't deal with any of the issues brought up at the previous AfD, uses no new sources, and is pretty much word for word from the previous version. I'm going to speedy this and close this early, especially since the last AfD was so recently held. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 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 delete: A7 and G11 per {{db-web}}. The fact that the title has the word "school" in it does not change what it is: a self-promotional article about a website with no claim of importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WDOSchool[edit]

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

"School" owned by 15-year-old "CEO" No independent sources. —teb728 t c 09:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the articles about the website and its creator. No evidence of notability, possible COI issue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account about a website with no evidence of notability claimed or found. Fails WP:NWEB; could go as a CSD A7? AllyD (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it here rather than tagging it {{db-web}} because the title identifies it as a "School". I was concerned that an A7 might be declined on the grounds that it was an "educational institution" —teb728 t c 20:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadi John[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Fails WP:NOTABILITY? The identity of the man who killed James Foley is being discussed in the media over the world. The monster is nicknamed Jihadi John. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be redirect and merge to a relevant section of the article about the murdered journalist. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG with a cleanup. Redirection is unsuitable because a detailed discussion of Jihadi John and the technical aspects of the video are beyond the scope of James Foley's article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is really no reason whatsoever to remove this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs)
Absolute Keep: Isn't this the alleged killer of James Foley? Therefore, he is (notoriously) notable. Worldedixor (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely a suspect subject to a massive international manhunt is notable enough for Wikipedia. Tomh903 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Absolutely notable. When (and if) his true identify is known, this article can be revised or merged with the article that will surely result from that. Should be cross-referenced with James Foley and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant articles. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They should not made more important than they are, just brutal killers. Monart (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "They should not made more important than they are, just brutal killers" is basically an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage in reliable sources, thus notable. Google News is currently returning over 32,000 results for "Jihadi John". Danrok (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, there's a lot more to come. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As usual, someone quickly nominates a new article for deletion. This article, as stated above, meets the criteria of notability. Gautehuus (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until any distinction/ link can be positively made between this name, Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary and the killer of James Foley. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 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 with no other opinions in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze Hearts[edit]

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

I could not establish that they meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Some coverage, but does not seem to be enough. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found independent reviews published by Allmusic.com [39], PopMatters [40], Times Union [41], Metroland [42], Obscure Sound [43]. It should be enough to meet WP:BAND (#1), in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above coverage plus more at NPR [44], musicOMH [45], and a second Allmusic review [46]; subject meets WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 16:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per aboe. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 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 all. Deor (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reno city councillors[edit]

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

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

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

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

Under WP:NPOL, Wikipedia only extends an automatic presumption of notability to city councillors if they serve in major metropolitan world cities with populations in the millions, such as New York City or Los Angeles, but Reno (population 225K) does not meet that standard. A city councillor in Reno could still potentially be considered notable if the article were reliably sourced enough to get them past WP:GNG as an individual, but none of these four articles meet that standard either — Gustin, Dortch and Zadra all rely exclusively on the city's own website (an invalid primary source) and on "election results" lists which merely mention their names, and while Sferrazza is marginally better sourced than that, she still isn't sourced enough. (Sferrazza didn't win when she ran for higher office, either, so that claim still doesn't entitle her to an automatic keep in the absence of much better sourcing than this.) So they all need to be deleted as things stand right now. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sharon Zadra, Dan Gustin and Dwight Dortch due to failure of WP:BASIC. Jessica Sferrazza undecided.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zadra, Gustin and Dortch could be speedy. References on Sferrazza are mainly mentions in local news articles, which as a city council person would be the norm. Not notable. May be in the future. LaMona (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of them come even close to the notability threshold for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, as of now, low-level legislators, i.e. councillors. Quis separabit? 19:51, 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 No Consensus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 3, 2014; 17:42 (UTC)

Yama Buddha[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BAND Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, they have not received significant coverage in reliable sources. A very similar version of this article was deleted as unambiguous advertising just a little while ago. STATic message me! 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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 ♔ 20:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yama Buddha is notable and also has coverage on reliable sources. I added Anil Adhikari as it is his original name. In Nepalese articles, sources from The himalayan times, ekantipur are reliable. Here are some sources:

- The Himalayan Times - Rap activism

- Ekantipur - Entertainment at the Edufair

Ascii002Talk Contribs 01:32, 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, Sandstein 07:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the quality of the article's writing style trivializes the apparent notability of Yama Buddha, and in some sections of the article, the inadequate attribution of sources hampers the article's quality. As it is, it's hard to tell whether Yama Buddha meets notability requirements, and I'm on the fence, but coming from a Western perspective, it's harder to evaluate notability qualifiers for a Nepalese musician and determine analogues of notability, so I think it's better to err on 'keep'. At the very least, this page would benefit from some solid cleanup to look more encyclopedic. Upjav (talk) 17:27, 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lárus Halldór Grímsson[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Obviously, there are sourcing issues as he is Icelandic, but this page has been tagged for notability for six and a half years, and still has no evidence of notability or any reliable sources. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to source almost all the statements in the article and add several additional points from various online biographies in Icelandic, and announcements about performances of his works litter the online archive of Morgunblaðið. I omitted the years he played in Eik - couldn't find a definitive source - and have left as a hidden comment the statement that he won the Gaudeamus Prize in 1982, when the official site says it was not awarded. However, he demonstrably has a high national profile, there is more about his works available in the definitive study of 20th-century Icelandic music (particularly electronic), which is a PhD thesis available online (I referenced it for one point), and he has been director/conductor of two high profile wind/brass bands for many years and also teaches at a music school. Meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking good after Yngvadottir's edits. He's mentioned in this essay over 20th century icelandic music. bbx (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Thanks so much for your help, User:Yngvadottir, you've convinced me. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 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 Norsk Data. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PED (editor)[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009, no evidence of notability. Deprodded with the reason ' "Programmers' Editor" produces 15 pages of results in GBooks'. But of course it does: "programmers' editor" is a common noun phrase. Yet another reason that counting search engine hits is meaningless. — Keφr 07:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I failed to realise that there was more than one brand of "programmers' editor". But counting search engine results is not necessarily meaningless. There are many expressions that are sufficiently unambiguous that the number of results in GBooks and GScholar correlates closely with notability. If "programmers' editor" had been a protected trademark, it would probably have worked. James500 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norsk Data or delete. It's a highly unlikely search term, but it's conceivable that someone might find it useful one day. This is computing cruft of doubtful notability. I see a few Google hits, but many of them seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norsk Data: [47]. James500 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norsk Data. I checked the Norwegian entry for Norsk Data and it's not mentioned there. This page lists sintran software documentation, but PED's appears to be lost. I'm willing to cut a lot of slack for early software, but there just isn't enough out there to justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:44, 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; nominator withdrawal mol uɐɯ 21:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Gender_polarization[edit]

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

This article is redundant with gender roles, and is written as an essay. Gccwang (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator based on Tomwsulcer's explanation below and improvements to the article. Gccwang (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree there are problems with the article, including WP:ESSAY, but the concept of Gender polarization is a term in sociology in the sense that the term's coiner, Sandra Bem, is cited sufficiently. I searched several SERP pages and saw sufficient evidence that the term is in use. Gender roles is distinct from the idea of Gender polarization, the latter term describing what happens in a society when sex becomes intertwined with ideas about gender. Problem is, the current wiki-article is in sad shape; if it survives a deletion review, I'll try to fix it when I have time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 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, Sandstein 07:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thulasi Nair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No obvious notability NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 11:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "She is following her sister's footsteps" but notability is not inherited. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Radha (her mother) or Karthika Nair until she gains significant notability. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as this is the third nomination--180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect towards Radha (actress) (seems to be more high profile than Karthika Nair), and then Protect the redirect to prevent recreation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, featured in leading publications & has done notable work & been nominated for awards for her performance! A mystery why this article has repeatedly been targeted for deletion. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to above question: Possibly because we cannot see what you do. Where are those leading publications, nominations etc? Please add them to the article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated, added relevant material. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has the references that one would expect for this topic, IMO. However, the references with "{{cite web|author=The author has posted comments on this article |url=" should remove the "author=" portion, and if there is an author named on the article it should be listed in the reference. For example, the Times of India interview lists Karthik Pasupulate as the author of the article. Then I'd say this is a keep. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 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, Sandstein 07:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles in The Times of India and The Hindu seem to be sufficient to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include The Hindu, The Times of India, The Hindu, The Times of India, Sify (short article, sourced from Indo-Asian News Service. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Flynn[edit]

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

DOes not appear to meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. May be notable in the future, but not just yet.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems short of WP:ACADEMICS, which is not altogether suprising as he is a plain lecturer at his university (albeit in the GB sense). Could not find evidence towards WP:BIO either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just - list all of his books.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet the notability critieria for either academics or authors. He also fails to meet WP:GNG.131.118.229.17 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Krav Magen[edit]

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

Non-notable derivative of parent martial art. No sources establish notability - nothing to distinguish it from parent art except for the associations web page. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A non-notable spinoff of Krav Maga. There's no indication of what makes it different or why it's notable. The only source is a link to the organization's home page. It fails to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show why this variation is notable. No independent sources.Mdtemp (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty-Keem Sadler[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 07:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 07:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beginning professional boxer with a non-notable amateur career. Article has no significant coverage and he also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As far as an encyclopedia is concerned, this individual is a nobody the panda ₯’ 14:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Deletebots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has claimed to be the subject and has expressed a desire that the page be removed.--Auric talk 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those barely literate edits started a day after the AfD began. Not at all sure it was anything but a vandal but still the AfD is the fastest route to a more permanent delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 17 relevent sources found so meets GNG (I don't usually close on 1 keep but even after a week relisting it would still be the same result/outcome.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Sam Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was speedied by me following a CSD nom, but it was pointed out that there had been an afd to keep nine years ago. Given that the current text bears little resemblance to that version, I suggest that the largely uncited article is basically a self-serving advertisement and should now go Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG per news and book sources. Source examples include: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] (subscription required). Some of the book sources contain information about the organization that is short in nature, but beyond passing mentions. Source examples: [59] (pp. 246-247), [60] (pp. 151-152), [61], [62], [63], [64]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rover (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Claimed award was actually given to another band on 24 February 2010. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films. jps (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BAND and GNG no significant coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with the reasons mentioned this and the other two articles mentioned have WP:SELFPROMOTION problems. MarnetteD|Talk 13:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and not a generally notable WP:BLP. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Paradigm Films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and ARTIST no significant coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSIC notability for a singer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with the reasons mentioned this and the other two articles mentioned have WP:SELFPROMOTION problems. MarnetteD|Talk 13:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reliable sources do not exist and notability cannot be established. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Paradigm Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources necessary for this or WP:GNG not forthcoming, neither in English nor Norwegian. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll (singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rover (band). jps (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable promotional, no coverage in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claim to fame is winning a "People's Choice" award from a UFO convention; that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks as though its function is to direct people to its website or to stream the film in question. MarnetteD|Talk 12:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:COMPANY. They exist yes, but lack coverage in independent reliable sources. And while their films may have won awards, the awards themselves do not appear notable, even for documentaries. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG per lack of in depth coverage from independent and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Goren[edit]

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

Non-notable director, no independent sources provided. Attempt to redirect to his new film was reverted by author. --Finngall ^talk 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are HuffPost and the site designed for the movie. No reliable 3rd party resources.
Delete-The IMDB link doesn't even go to the person-it goes to a film. And from the look of it-just one film so far. Now maybe if he does more and/or gets nominated for this somehow, but in those cases that is too soon and would be made another day! So delete on that case as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Do Not Delete" - Vast background, well-known in industry. First film perhaps, but with with four roles in production and on camera. IMDb link goes to Goren. Additionally, related to Bridge master Charles Henry Goren.(talk) 12:16, 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. Deor (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivation[edit]

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

There's a seeker born every minute. This is an advertisement for a specific obscure cult's brandname variant of breathwork, and at most should be a redirect thererunto. Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been provided in several books, including secondary sources. If this article is being pushed to deletion, there must be accountable and justifiable reasons for doing so. As I have already pointed out, there are hundred of other Wikipedia entries that only cite primary sources. Also, calling this self-applied process a "cult" is both spurious and libelous. It is a valid and highly recognized form of breathwork, considered one of the three primary forms of Western breathwork, the other two being Rebirthing and Holotropic. Over 300,000 copies of primary source books have been sold. Therefore it meets the notability requirement. What then are the reasons for the proposed deletion, other than an ideological crusade? Playanaut (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Playanaut (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am urgently requesting mediation on this dispute from the Wikipedia Editorial community. Calling something a "cult" without substantiation is libelous. Vivation is a self-applied process people do *on their own*. There is no leader, and there is no "following". Vivation does not require any kind of allegiance, and there are no belief systems or dogmas attached to this very practical, hands-on skill of breathwork and relaxation techniques. Playanaut (talk)

Delete: Non-notable rebranding of breathwork, and a piece of advertising copy to boot. I strongly suspect many of the purported references added to this article don't discuss Vivation itself, as opposed to breathwork in general. That doesn't confer notability on Vivation, nor does the claimed number of books (whether actually sold to consumers or, much more likely, to bookstores for resale). The arguments in favor of keeping presented here are typical distractions from the central issue: this subject is not notable and this article is written to promote something that is not notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The work of Jim Leonard is not the same as other breath-work methods. Jim have published several books on the subject and I have during over 30 years done both Ribirthing, Liberating breath work, Vivation and others. His work is apart from other techniques and should have its own page. I would like to ask anyone who edit or place this for deletion if they have ever tried any breath-work, and more importantly to contribute to this pages existence, if they have done Vivation? It is one thing to ask for a page to meet the standards of Wikipedia as having a professional expression, it is another to involve oneself in the content of the page when there is substantial background like published books. Do not take part in the content of the page unless you have knowledge in the thing you edit. 195.1.123.118 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC) — 195.1.123.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Open to changing my !Vote if reliable sources providing some in depth discussion. Currently article is based entirely on primary (self published?) sources. In a quick look around I didn't find anything but promotional material. No scholarly discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So suggestions for deletion coming from user: Mendaliv are now based on "strong suspicions". Where is your evidence? All the sources listed mention Vivation by name. Both the books by Michael Brown and Sigrid Lange, both discuss Vivation at length. They meet all the criteria for secondary sources as requested. All efforts have been made to describe the process of Vivation in a neutral, factual and descriptive manner. No promotional and advertising wording is there. Calling something "advertising copy" does not make it so. Additionally, standards are being applied to this article that are not being applied to other articles of it's type. One look at the entry on Kumdo will show you that despite it's very extensive length and descriptions, all references are from primary sources, with most of them coming from a single source. Since this controversy has arisen, I have found hundreds of substantive articles that merit DELETION based on the criteria being applied here. Playanaut (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what I have read in the sources provided is discussion by proponents. What is needed is some quality independent source that provides a description for paraphrasing. A description based on sources that are directly and intimately involved with the subject is not appropriate, it is in fact very similar to advertising copy. Has a scholar in the field done an analysis of this? Have there been peer reviewed articles published about this? These are the sources needed for an encyclopedic article, otherwise this material can be presented on the websites of proponents, advocates or the related businesses. This subject does not seem to warrant the level of discussion in reliable sources that would result in an encyclopedia article. I encourage you to post to the talk pages of any articles you find that lack reliable secondary sources or if clear cases place tags on them and if appropriate nominate them for deletion. Other bad stuff is on WP is not a valid argument for keeping more. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked quite hard for sources and outside the work by insiders there seems to be no more than a smattering of mentions. For this reason I don't think this topic is notable enough for an article (maybe it would warrant a mention in one of the many other breakwork-type articles we have). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge User:MrBill3 and User:Gene93k Firstly, thank you for bringing the tone of this discussion back where it needs to be, explaining in clear terms your reasoning. I went back and rechecked the Wikipedia entry on "Breathwork", and it too needs more documentation, more citable references, and more work to bring it up to the standards you are requiring here. My recommendation is the following - That the Vivation entry be merged into the larger Breathwork entry as part of a greater effort by other experts in this field to bring that entry's quality up. Although I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time, I am not as experienced as others here, and do not know the procedure for doing a merge of this kind. Although I happen to know quite a bit about Vivation, as a 30 year Yoga practitioner, I know even more about 'breathwork', including knowing several experts (i.e. PhD's in related fields) who could provide reliable 3rd party references, scholarly articles, peer review journal papers, scientific studies, etc., as part of improving the overall quality of the 'Breathwork' entry. Playanaut (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with merge: Vivation is not a notable form of breathwork. There's nothing to merge that would not result in violating WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with merge per Menadaliv. I haven't seen anything that supports due weight for vivation. I welcome improvements to other articles on breathwork using quality sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user:Gene93k Why is this discussion also occuring in Medical and Spiritual related discussion boards? This breathing and relaxation process is neither inherently medical or spiritual. I know of a no Vivation practitioner who refers to Vivation as alternative or complementary "medicine", and there is no spiritual component to it either. I continue to find it perplexing how a breathing, relaxation and simple awarness technique can be labeled any of these things. This is why the labels of "spiritual", "medical", and even "cult" as used by user: OrangeMike, are erroneous. I thought these discussions would at least occur from people versed enough on the topic to render an impartial and informed judgement. For the most part, such impartial and reasoned discussion has not occurred, until today. Playanaut (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playanaut - If you go to those pages you will see exactly what you see here. Adding a discussion topic is just another way to bring it to peoples' attention. If there is a WP community that should be in this discussion, please say what that is. LaMona (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the talk page of the article there is a reliable source (not a practitioner) describing vivation as alternative medicine, the article contains biomedical information including physiological descriptions, claimed health benefits and claimed psychological benefits, there is an associated philosophy which many would consider spiritual. For these reasons the article falls under the scope of a variety of projects. Bringing an article to the attention of other editors is very much accepted and common practice on WP as long as done in an appropriate way (neutral, noncanvassing) it is very useful in improving the encyclopedia. Particularly in the case of an AfD it can bring editors with interest, knowledge and familiarity with sources to improve the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Self-promotion based on self-published and primary sources of little value. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor renaming of a standard procedure for promotional purposes.Lack of coverage as anything more specific than that. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Leonard (Vivation)[edit]

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

Obscure founder of an obscure cult; written in a promotional tone that implies bogus validity of his work, and without a single actual proper reference. Orange Mike | Talk 00:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are spurious and totally unfounded claims. Please point out the specific language that is "promotional" in nature? Playanaut (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reply - "pioneer"; "used to resolve negative emotions and attachments". These are assertions made by followers of his ideas, not reliably sourced and certainly not neutrally stated. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vivation is not notable, and by extension, Jim Leonard, known only for inventing it, is also not notable. I found no mentions of this person in reliable news media sources. I suspect that the references to this article are either unreliable or do not give Leonard any substantial coverage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 04:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources given are fringe works of proponents/followers/practitioners/adherents. No reliable sources. Promotion also includes "best known as the father of" if the subject is known where is the coverage outside the band of advocates? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and may be not quite correct too. The one independent source I have found on Vivation says it was co-founded by "Phil Lawton" (who seems also to go by the name Phil Laut). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable figure who promoted non-notable variation in meditation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Self-promotion based on self-published and primary sources of little value. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLPFRINGE. (Even though the man is dead, the argument that he is not notable for his fringe beliefs still applies.) jps (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National British Resistance[edit]

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

This was PROD tagged earlier, the PROD was then deleted by an IP editor without comments or improvements. Neither the PROD-er nor I could find any evidence of significant coverage of this party in reliable sources, therefore notability has not been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standards. Delete. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As original PRODder. ... discospinster _talk 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly insignificant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant sources and more seems to be "promoting" the career of it's founder and his frequent court appearances. Nthep (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is clearly a new political party and is building in momentum. If we delete this article today then we will be building another one in a few months. Needs a few adjustments perhaps but it makes sense to keep it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.56.4 (talk) — 79.65.56.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nominator and above comments; no indication given of notability or significance. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot find evidence of anything more than 3 members and the "founder" is merely a notorioux hoaxer / troll who appears to have created this page to gain attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RibbyKennedy (talk • contribs) 19:33, August 26, 2014‎
- RibbyKennedy is a WP:SPA created just minutes before this edit. Meters (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. Not a registered party so little more reason to keep this than anyone else's webpage. Note that the article's claim that the group only has three members failed verification of the cited source. They may indeed only have 3 members, but they may also have more. Meters (talk) 20:04, 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 Speedied G4. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vistra[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Can't see why it is notable. Reads like an advertisement. Refs point to company financial web pages. scope_creep 00:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ascii002Talk Contribs 02:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note the previous AfD deletion in March 2014: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vistra_Group, also a speedy-deletion in May. These and the current article were all notified to the same article creator User:BennyOIL. I can't see the version that was deleted in March but am going to flag a CSD G4 so that it can be checked and deleted if not substantially different from the current version. (If so, I'd recommend WP:SALT on both names.) AllyD (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flo'Ball[edit]

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

I failed to find enough reliable coverage for this sport. The two links given in the article are not significant enough; in fact, the second link appears to be promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable invented sport. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable sport appears to be invented could not any find reliable sources for this sport.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete still, wikipedia, should vehiculate all good ideas and knowledge. There are thousands of pages of wikipedia talking about sports that are played by really a few number of players.. but it's about knowledge. sport knowledge. just go on Youtube and you'll see matches and videos. if you need any documentation, official documentation, ask to SIAE, italian authority (same of american RIA) where the Official Rules Set is deposited. Mikko it (talk) 22:24, 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 no consensus. I'm tempted to call this a consensus to not keep the article, with uncertainty about whether it should be merged/redirected or just plain deleted. But, both Northamerica1000 and Rcsprinter123 felt that as of 11 August, there was not a clear enough consensus to close this, and the only thing which has happened since then is one more argument to keep, which surely doesn't argue for a delete consensus. So, I'm going to call this NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mason (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. All coverage comes from the time that he won CMT's Next Superstar, with no subsequent coverage whatsoever. This seems to be a case similar to Angela Hacker, who won a season of Nashville Star but received no coverage after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable musician. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CMT's_Next_Superstar--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CMT's Next Superstar. All non-local coverage appears to relate to his stint on Next Superstar. His appearance on an earlier singing show, his past history with drugs/alcohol, and his "Chasing Stardust" song/album are all sourced, so even if a standalone article is not warranted, there's no reason why a few sentences can't be incorporated into the Next Superstar page, similar to how American Idol finalists receive summaries within the show's page (example). Gongshow talk 16:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT.--Rpclod (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, so "subsequent coverage" is irrelevant to deciding if a previously wp:notable topic belongs in the encyclopedia. Last AfD, including sources provided by Cavaronne and NorthAmerica1000, shows 12 references that show that our WP:GNG guideline, which only needs two good sources, is satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In my view, the "keep" consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mason (singer) was not at all unreasonable. There's coverage of him beyond just news of his Next Superstar win, for example in the Dayton Daily News I found there is coverage from 2012, and also a bit of coverage of him touring in 2013 (Don Thrasher. "The Top", Dayton Daily News 26 July 2013: p. AC.3.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:45, 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. AfD open for more than a month with no one arguing for keeping. Deor (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SHARM Holding[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no significant coverage in secondary sources, just links that confirm that they were the production company for several films. McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: We might hope Armenian Wikipedians can come forward with either hard-copy or non-English sources discussing this Armenian company. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:07, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and lacks Reliable sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2014; 21:00 (UTC)

Natalie Duddridge[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist working in a single media market, which relies entirely on primary sources such as her profile on the website of the television station she works for, and video clips of news reports in which she's the reporter, not the reportee, thus failing to be coverage in which she's the subject. "Reported on dangerous intersections" and "photobombed by topless woman" are not claims of notability that pass WP:NMEDIA, needless to say, and a television reporter needs more than to just exist to qualify for an article on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to withdraw this if real sources started showing up, but that ain't what these sources are. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, who is spot on. In order for Duddridge to be notable, she needs to be the subject of the coverage used as references. Upjav (talk) 17:48, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Tran[edit]

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

Yet another campaign brochure for yet another as-yet-unelected candidate in yet another party primary. As always, this fails WP:NPOL right on its face — a politician does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for running in an election, but must normally either (a) win election to office, or (b) already be notable enough for other things that they'd qualify for an article on those grounds regardless of the candidacy. But neither of those have been demonstrated here; almost all of the sources are supporting statements about his campaign positions. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Can recreate if he wins the election Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article serving as campaign support. And if he wins, he'll still need some substantial refs. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for aforementioned reasons. User: ALPolitico (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk Gets on Board[edit]

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

No non-trivial works about this pulp TV-based fiction. Note that WP:NBOOKS confers notability to titles that caused significant contribution to other media, not media based on notable other media. Mikeblas (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Darn near every novel in this series has been reviewed in EQMM, I don't have access to see if this has been reviewed there, is there someone else who could check that? --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 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 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Step 3 was carried out in this edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folded Wing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced article about a media company, originally created by that company themselves (a WP:COI violation); the more neutral version is still getting overwritten (most recently by User:PeteFoldedWing just a few days ago) with an attempt at pushing it back into advertorial territory. While there are claims here that could get the company past WP:CORP if they were properly sourced, and thus I'm willing to withdraw this if the referencing can be properly spruced up, it's not entitled to keep an unsourced version. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has got to be a delete. The WP:COI is blatant. There are no references. There is no evidence of the awards listed, since those are not sourced. WP:V. LaMona (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shame, really. It seems everything on this page should be pretty easy to source, and if it's all true (as the article stands today), then it's probably notable too. But of course it can't stand without sourcing. This really seems to merit an article, but not like this - not without sourcing, and not with someone with a single-purpose account and a COI waiting to make an ad out of it again. Dcs002 (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the COI is not a problem here since it's not against the rules as such to edit on a topic where you have a COI, as long as it is declared (which it is). However, I'm not seeing how they meet WP:CORP, a handful of minor awards of the sort that I'd expect any long lasting business in the industry to have. They appear to be successful as a firm, but 'successful' is not the same as 'notable' as far as Wikipedia goes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Becker[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 12:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:49, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There's probably enough to meet WP:GNG. Some bits of coverage in reliable sources are already cited in the article. I also found a fair amount in the Times Colonist such as this, and offline:
- Rubolino, Frank. "Reviews: Noah Becker; Jimmy Coe & Paul Weeden", Cadence Magazine, the Independent Journal of Creative Improvised Music 27 3 (Mar 2001): 45–46.
- "Back beat – Noah Becker is one dedicated students of jazz", Times Colonist 12 Jan 1995.
- Blake, Joseph. "Back beat" (review) Times Colonist 18 Nov 1993.
- "Dixon sets rhythm in Becker quartet", Saanich News 6 Oct 2004: B4. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:18, 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. Assuming good faith on the Russian and Ukrainian language sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illya Chichkan[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three interwikis, of which the ru:Чичкан, Илья Аркадьевич is reasonably detailed, and a ton of Google hits in Russian and Ukrainian (Ілля Чичкан). Presented Ukraine on the 2009 Venice Biennale [65]. No such user (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:51, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Pravda article from Russian Wikipedia [66] is good evidence as are these articles from Forbes Ukraine: [67] and [68]. He's number 9 on the Forbes 25 of the most successful artists of Ukraine, I kid you not. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Future[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Part of a walled garden, including The Millennium Project (also at AFD) and Jerome C. Glenn (deleted after AFD). Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs independent verification of notability. -- GreenC 04:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:53, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree previous version of article lacked references, but sources suggest that the report is indeed notable, used by many organizations, authoritative and influential, quoted by news sources, affiliated with the United Nations, multiple independent references meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the AfD for the Millenium Project, this one is not UN related. Apart from that, I'd appreciate if you could specify which sources suggest notability. Thanks. (PS: in any case thanks for your interest and !voting, this has already been relisted three times, so whatever the final verdict will be, it's high time this one gets closed... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and trimmed more cruft from the article. I guess, based on your comments and after reviewing things, what might be best is if both State of the Future content and the The Millennium Project content were combined into one short article, with the good references from the SotF article; would that work for people? My thinking is that the report itself has oomph, is authoritative and has an impact, while the organization, as such, doesn't get sufficient attention, so maybe they should both be combined under the title SotF.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references are the non-notable organization or confused with the UN Millennium Group that makes a similar paper coverage. Frmorrison (talk) 18:49, 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. Nice save, here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disordered eating[edit]

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

This content should be merged to eating disorder. A distinction is made that this is a behavior associated with "eating disorders", but that people doing this may not have an eating disorder. I am unable to find this distinction sufficiently made in papers in a PubMed or Google search, and the sources here do not meet WP:RS.

I think this article confuses the concept of an eating disorder and ought to be deleted to be made into a redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this topic to have 26,100 hits on GScholar, with the first several pages of hits showing papers substantially about disordered eating. GBooks shows 25,400 hits. The topic also shows up in information on government heath websites like CDPH and in prominent popular publications like Psychology Today. The topic is highly notable. The article has possible problems with close paraphrasing and could obviously be expanded and better referenced. But all of these problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A highly notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking I do not feel strongly about this and perhaps the article could be kept. I agree that at least thousands of sources use this term, and that many of them are respectable publications. Neither the sources you cited nor any others I have seen, to me, make good distinction between "disordered eating" and an "eating disorder". "Disordered eating" seems to be the behavior that people with eating disorders do, and doing disordered eating does not mean that someone has an eating disorder, but the concepts seem very close to me. There could be an article on "problematic alcohol drinking" which is separate from "alcohol abuse", because even more sources talk about bad use of alcohol which is not abuse. People make the distinction in lots of literature but in my opinion, the concepts are very close and I know of no where else on Wikipedia where concepts like these are distinguished. You are completely correct that lots of sources use this term. I still think this should be deleted, perhaps because of WP:FORK. If content exists to distinguish disordered eating and eating disorder then it is not in this article right now and not in the sources you provided. Thanks for commenting. Someone could save this article, maybe. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:00, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs major help. Right now this article is mostly about eating disorders, which is inappropriate. Disordered eating can, for example, arise as a result of neural damage, but eating disorders involve body image issues (body dysmorphia). This is an area in which I have a fair bit of expertise. (Neural regulation of appetite was my field of interest as a neuroscientist.) Disordered eating is a behavioral sign, while an eating disorder is a diagnosis. I'm looking through my DSM-IV-TR right now for the reference given in the first sentence but not finding one. I used to teach this stuff to college students, but that was a long time ago. I will look for RS and check back. I have a few textbooks in my garage, plus the DSM-V is online. Like Mark viking said, it's fixable. I'll find something. It's a valid concept apart from eating disorders, only this article is written as if they were varying degrees of the same thing, which they aren't. Dcs002 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from a 2013 review by an old colleague of mine, Dianne Neumark-Sztainer & colleagues, in Adv. Nutr. 4: 277–286, 2013; doi:10.3945/an.112.003608 "Chronic Illness and Disordered Eating: A Discussion of the Literature" [69]

It is important to delineate disordered eating from eating disorders. Eating disorders are defined as a “clinically meaningful behavioral or psychological pattern having to do with eating or weight that is associated with distress, disability, or with substantially increased risk of morbidity or mortality”. On the other hand, disordered eating behaviors are abnormal behaviors associated with eating disorders, such as restraint eating; emotional eating; disinhibited eating; night eating; binge eating; weight, shape, and eating concerns; strict dieting; and controlling one’s body weight and shape through inappropriate compensatory behaviors (e.g., purging) that do not warrant a psychiatric diagnosis of an eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition

This isn't the precise way in which we used the term in my lab, but it gets at the basics. The review covers disordered eating associated with a number of diseases, like diabetes, cyctic fibrosis, celiac disease, & a couple of bowel diseases. The disordered eating arises from the disease and the diet imposed on the patients, putting them at risk for eating disorders. Here's a disturbing quote:

On the Internet, there are now >100 proanorexia Web sites that not only encourage disordered eating but offer specific advice on purging, severely restricting caloric intake, and exercising excessively.

Here is the context in which I'm more familiar seeing the term:

Clinicians who see children need to understand that spending a minute discussing children's media use may be as important as explaining the importance of a bicycle helmet, particularly if a child is showing signs of school difficulty, aggressiveness, disordered eating, or poor sleep patterns.

A generic term used loosely to mean abnormal eating patterns, with the general connotation that they are unhealthy. (These last two quotes come from this review in Pediatrics: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/4/756.long Dcs002 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs002 The two quotations you present at the bottom are still not convincing to me. While I recognize frequent use of the term "disordered eating", I still think that the concept being discussed in these cases is equivalent to the behavior which defines an "eating disorder", and that there is nothing distinct to say about it.

The other source at least says that eating disorders and disordered eating are worth distinguishing, but I worry that this is still a distinction without a difference because this still seems like the behaviors which define a diagnosis. For practically any behavioral disorder, there is some disordered behavior which defines the behavioral disorder and which a person can have without meeting diagnostic criteria for that behavioral disorder.

What you say in the following part about "disordered eating associated with a number of diseases" is something completely different, because in those cases, we are talking about pressures from a health condition which cause behavior changes. When people have a physiological cause for behavior change then I might expect that the underlying cause of the change be treated before trying to change the person's behavior, whereas in other cases discussed, behavioral intervention alone could conceivably be a treatment.

I am in agreement with you that the information about eating disorders should be removed from here in any case. It might be a good compromise to keep this article, delete all information which certainly does not belong, then see what is left. I expect it would be easy to find consensus about what should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry , your comment "equivalent to the behavior which defines an 'eating disorder'" is key. The behaviors don't define eating disorders. Disorders require other criteria, e.g., irrational belief that one is fat and ugly, refusal to maintain body weight, and amenorrhea (for anorexia nervosa). Disordered eating is the abnormal eating behavior on its own, regardless of any eating disorder. Disordered eating can encompass things like night eating syndrome and other abnormal meal patterns, which are unrelated to eating disorders, and treatment isn't necessarily appropriate. Disordered eating can result from some physiological conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease or traumatic brain injury, in which case patients might lose appetite regulation or memory and regularly forget to eat. Disordered eating is a category that includes many behaviors, and a patient may exhibit any of those behaviors, for any reason, in the absence of an eating disorder. An eating disorder represents a specific collection of signs and symptoms that satisfy diagnostic criteria, some behavioral and some physiological (e.g., amenorrhea and underweight), though all include some sort of disordered eating. Remember also that "eating disorder" includes multiple disorders, and "disordered eating" is a category including multiple behaviors. No pattern of disordered eating defines eating disorders, and again, some patterns of disordered eating are not related to any eating disorder.

Enough information about eating disorders should remain in this article to explain that disordered eating can be a risk factor for development of eating disorders. The distinction between disordered eating and eating disorders should be made clear in the article with this discussion of the one being a risk factor for developing the other. Dcs002 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote what was in this article. Nearly all of it was improperly-sourced or referred to eating disorders. I used references from 4 journal articles (all reviews) and a website sanctioned by The Mental Health Programs and Services division of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. It might be a stub or starter class, but I think there's enough there now to satisfy notability, verifiability, and distinction from eating disorders. The distinction is made pretty clearly in the sources. Of note is the study (reviewed in reference 5) showing 5% of women with disordered eating also had an eating disorder, unless they were athletes, in which case 18% of those with disordered eating had an eating disorder. Clinically and academically they are two separate entities and should not be confused. I'll add a hatnote to the page to clarify further. Dcs002 (talk) 08:45, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Beibl[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO, [70]. Only claim to fame is being a member of Tangerine Dream. Being in a notable group does not in and off itself make the individual notable. AlanS (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to work this now, and apparently no one else will ever expand it. I will recreate it some day. Ditto for Iris Camaa, Thorsten Quaeschning, Hoshiko Yamane and Linda Spa. -- Gadget850^talk 12:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:01, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:24, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Church Near You[edit]

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

The article fails WP:WEB and lacks secondary sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into Church of England, where it properly belongs. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 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, Tawker (talk) 05:12, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ONVOLO[edit]

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

Non-notable social network company. The only decent source constitutes coverage of the founder, not the company. The other sources consist of a press release and the company's own website. Nothing else of significance can be found beyond the company's own marketing presence. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company was mentioned by Businessweek, it appears to be a significant effort (drawing top talent), and the website, android app, and IOS app show the company is of significant capabilities. I understand it is a startup, but I think this is clearly WP:N.Casprings (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several WP:RS are covering this company. They include:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/onvolo-app-brings-back-trust-120000326.html
http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2107941
http://www.kctv5.com/story/26221163/onvolo-app-brings-back-trust-to-online-interaction

I think this further strengthens the case that the subject and article meet WP:N.Casprings (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. A mere mention in Business Week doesn't establish notability. Furthermore, every single one of those references you list is a press release. Yahoo and Digitaljournal even designate the source as PR Newswire (meaning the original source is ONVOLO), and kctv5 says the source is ONVOLO itself. Self-published sources are not acceptable to establish notability, and neither are trivial mentions. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A press release picked up by a WP:RS is still a WP:RS reporting on something. Companies use press releases and those releases are picked up by the press. It happens for all kinds of products. However, the fact remains that three WP:RS saw the significance of the company and reported on it.Casprings (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing coverage with publishing: if reliable source publishes press release, it is still a primary source – press release author, not a secondary source – publisher. Lack of editorial oversight (press releases are published verbatim) disqualifies these sources right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. @Casprings:, please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, particularly the fourth bullet. "Significant coverage" is required from independent sources. A press release is not an independent source, and therefore not eligible to use for notability assessment. If you can provide multiple sources that are simultaneously reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage (not trivial mention), then I am happy to withdraw this AFD nomination. However, I have found nothing to suggest that this company is notable. The founder may be notable, but remember also, notability is not inherited. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Maybe it's just too soon. The company was only founded last year so it's not surprising it hasn't achieved notability yet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 05:17, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above arguments. I really doubt this company is notable. --I dream of horses (T) @ 07:10, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Tharaneetharan[edit]

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

Extremely short article of a man who directed only one film so far (he has not announced any new film yet) with only one source. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:51, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janumadatha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and the article is mainly relying on unreliable references i.e. Wordpress. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: T. S. Nagabharana K Musthafa Doddahullur Rukkoji

As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing?... or at least suggest a reasonable redirect somewheres? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 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 ♔ 14:55, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 20:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with stub tag, and please withdraw your nomination. Nominating it for deletion only one day after its creation, especially without trying yourself to improve the article, is simply wrong and not in the spirit of how articles should be nominated. Look at WP:BEFORE. There are certain appropriate steps to be taken before nominating for deletion, and I see no evidence those items were tried or even considered. B2: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" Those appear to be your three concerns, so there are your appropriate actions. All of the steps under C and D seem to have been ignored. Please do not nominate articles for deletion without doing your part first. Look for sources and try fixing it, and if the article is brand new, like this one, add a stub tag and leave it alone. Dcs002 (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open Court Publishing Company#Popular culture & philosophy series. There is no clear concensus to delete after two relistings. As an alternative to deletion, a plausible redirect is a valid outcome per the opinions expressed. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars and Philosophy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Star Wars and Philosophy

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Nathan121212 (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed any primary sources and added others. There are significant results for this books search. Because the book was published a long time ago, there may less discussion on it web-wide. Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's dozens of these books, covering everything from Star Wars and Star Trek through to Game of Thrones, South Park, the Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan and the films of Quentin Tarantino. They have absolutely no relevance to philosophy as an academic practice—they basically contain capsule summaries of philosophy to be sold to fan communities. I had a look on Google Books and Google Scholar and can't find any evidence that these books are cited by anyone outside of other Open Court 'popular culture and philosophy' books. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very few books discuss the philosophy of Star Wars so I don't agree with that statement. And it was compiled by academicians.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Open Court Publishing Company#Popular culture & philosophy series. Anarchangel (talk) 01:19, 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, czar ♔ 15:00, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Court Publishing Company#Popular culture & philosophy series as suggested above. These are not serious philosophy books, more like gateway materials used to try and introduce philosophy to pop culture fans; that they have been compiled by academics is not relevant. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This article is not getting enough views to warrant a redirect. As discussed above, this is not a serious philosophy book. My original nomination of delete stands. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That line of reasoning is not compatible with WP:R. We have a very strong presumption against deleting plausible redirects. Low page views will not suffice because we have other reasons including preserving the page history, facilitating accidental linking and avoiding the creation of duplicate articles. James500 (talk) 13:46, 1 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hongkongnalli Agent Amar[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and the article is mainly relying on unreliable references i.e. Wordpress. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Hong Kong Nalli Agent Amar Hongkongnalli Agent Amar Joe Simon

As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:03, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 20:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indina Bharatha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and the article is mainly relying on unreliable references i.e. Wordpress. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Indina Bharatha T Krishna Pragathi Enterprises

As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 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 ♔ 15:03, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asambhava[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and the article is mainly relying on unreliable references i.e. Wordpress. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Asambhava D. Rajendra Babu H V Subba Rao V. Ravichandran
As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: when there are such references as you are stated above, then why you have not sourced the article. Sorry! to say but you are truly wasting time of other editors by adding unreliable sources to your articles and later arguing for the some or other causes. Instead of adding those references here you should use these to the article. I think there are very few Wikipedian who can read Kannada and you are making fool to those who cannot. CutestPenguin (Talk) 06:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Cutest Penguin: I added NO sources to this article, so check your facts. WP:ADHOM arguments are rarely convincing... and while I have improved over 550 weak articles, it is just as much your "job" as mine . Read WP:COMMUNITY and WP:SEP. My comment was not about SIGCOV, but for sourcability away from wordpress. Its problematic to not allow a creator time to improve an article. Being at the minimum at least sourcable, WP:ATD allows options that might allow that improvement, even were sources to not be in English. If unimproved, deletion is always an option, it just should not always be the first and only choice for weak articles, if issues might be addressed. Having few Kannada-reading Wikipedians does not mean we may declare Kannada topics somehow non-notable. What wastes other's time are possibly poor deletion nominations from a well-meaning new editor with 1500 edits and attacking an administrator with over 50,000. Tred carefully. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is wordpress articles acceptable as reliable reference. ?CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not, as WordPress is an open source web creation tool and pretty much anyone with the knowledge can build a site using it. We then look beyond the tool to an author, and consider if they have the expertise to offer their opinion. WP:Identifying reliable sources tells us that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." So for example, if Roger Ebert were so inclined (hah!) to use it to build a website and offer his views, we could consider his expertise as a reviewer, and not so much on where he chose to share his accepted-as-expert opinion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: The title of the current article is Asambhava which mean impossible in English and if we try to look for reliable references using google and the word so called Asambhava we will get a lots of results in the native language which may talk of different topic or field. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: Read WP:NONENG, WP:CSB, WP:INDAFD, and even WP:NCF. One of the greatest issues in sourcing non-English topics is proper translation (if possible). If this film was never released or issued under the English name "Impossible", then there is no point in looking for it that way. That said, even "Asambhava (1986 film)" would make more sense than "Impossible (1986 film)", but far more reasonable to look for it under it original title of "ಅಸಂಭವ" and refine searches to include director, writer, producers, etc. IN the original language (ie: the Kannada language, not in English). If one grants an inability to find or judge non-English sources for a non-English topic, one does well to not place themselves in a position to evaluate that which they are admittedly unable to evaluate. Seek experts in Kannada. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:04, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 20:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athiratha Maharatha[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and the article is mainly relying on unreliable references i.e. Wordpress. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Athiratha Maharatha Perala

Really? *As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still lacks significant coverage! And I think ಅತಿರಥ ಮಹಾರಥ mean HK Maharatha which is different from the title of the article. CutestPenguin (Talk) 05:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So ಅತಿರಥ ಮಹಾರಥ may apparently translate as HK Maharatha. So what? Did you ask the article creator about it? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: First of all I am sorry for arguing with very few edits in credit. I respect senior editors and even minors too. My concern was, the was article was failing WP:V and was referenced from unreliable reference. CutestPenguin (Talk) 11:58, 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 ♔ 15:05, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:16, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi County Does[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG or WP:CRIME Delete Secret ^account 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Doe Network, The National Missing and Unidentified Persons Database and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children are secondary sources, as they cover cases across the United States. These three sites also give a worldwide point of view, detailing cases from all over the world. This establishes notability and independence. The vast majority of the sources are from reliable websites. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 11:51, 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 ♔ 15:11, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 20:16, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strip Magic[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it fails Wikipedia general notability guideline, and qualifies for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia deletion policy for failing notability. It was speedied two days ago, on 28 July by me, brought it here at afd so that WP:CSD#G4 could be applied next time, if re-created again. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought about {{db-web}}ing it when I found it in the new page log, but settled for tagging it for notability. Thanks Anupmehra for taking the time to write up a good AfD. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 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 ♔ 15:16, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Anupmehra not notable and lacks reliable sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ragdoll (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film without significant coverage. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alts: Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Concept:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); Alt title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Ted Nicolaou. This looks to be one of the many FM movies that got churned out en masse during the late 90s, early 2000s, that never really gained any attention. There may be coverage that isn't on the internet, but I kind of doubt it. I suggest redirecting it to the director's page since he does seem to have notability enough to merit an article. If Devil Dolls survives deletion, I can't entirely see redirecting it there since it's not exactly the same movie but a heavily edited version with a new name, created for a horror anthology. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 1 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 03:54, 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 ♔ 15:21, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Technically, I don't think this AfD should have been relisted again. Since it has been, however, I'll take the opportunity to say that I've added a few sources to the article. Granted, most of them are a bit on the trivial side, but they show that it got a bit more coverage than I initially assumed. I was also able to also locate this article from The Hollywood Reporter (which I am unable to read despite my Highbeam account through TWL), and one of the sources alludes to further coverage from THR in terms of rumormongering about the production. Normally, this is less than I would require to vote to keep, but I think there's enough coverage to at least make the situation debatable, especially with the allusion to further offline coverage made in reliable sources. Since I've recently expanded the article (somewhat, at least), I'll ping @Tokyogirl79: and @MichaelQSchmidt:, who also recently contributed to the article but did not vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. It's a suitable stub. I'll go with a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep. Eh, I'm pretty easy, so I'll agree to go for a stub. Good job looking for sources! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 10:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Arnold[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable man that created a non-notable company. damiens.rf 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 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 ♔ 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chicago Tribune has quoted or mentioned him often: [71]. He is interviewed in a book. In other words, there may be more resources than are visible here, so if someone cares to do so, it could be possible to update the page. It may still not reach notability, but there would be more to judge from. LaMona (talk) 22:34, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 20:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changed my mind. This time I looked at the edits, and the IPs I looked at are all SPA's. And re-reading I find little beyond promotion for his company. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Silva Marques[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References are items that either do not mention article subject, are minor in nature, are primary references. Article lacks secondary references of substance. Fails WP:Bio and associated notability guidelines. Article borders on an advertisement for the individual. reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure. It certainly reads like a press release or advertisement for the individual, but he does have a few mentions in reliable sources. If it's kept, it will need to be rewritten for neutrality. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portugal_Day where he is named as the current chairman of the organizing committee in Mineola. In spite of the numerous references, all are mentions in news articles about local clubs and organizations. LaMona (talk) 21:02, 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. Although consensus was in favour of delete after two relistings, based on the additional sources now identified the article could be recreated based solely on referenced material according to BLP guidelines and without the promotional tone. AFAICT he has presumed notability per the academic notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Eduardo Pinto da Costa[edit]

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

Gratuitous promotion for a non-notable physician. damiens.rf 20:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His faculty profile and the Portuguese WP entry don't turn up any basis for notability; both are largely about his family. I can't locate any sources that speak to notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:07, 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 ♔ 20:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a number of web pages that refer to him, including an article in Folha de Portugal; a Facebook page that also contains videos of his television appearances; and a biography on the University of Porto's web site as a famous alumnus. His name pops up in this paper about forensic medicine in Portugal. I don't know exactly how well-known he is in Portugal but he seems to be worthy of mention by multiple independent sources, and was a professor at a major Portuguese university. --Gccwang (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some of the material from those sites to the article. Gccwang (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically, the @en page is now in better shape than the original Portuguese page. I still see this as a delete, however, although it would be good to move some of the citations to the @pt page. He seems to be an interesting local character, but not notable enough for significant articles about him. The cited articles all seem quite light-weight, human-interest types. LaMona (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has been a guest multiple times on the talk show "Praça da Alegria" as an expert (I'm guessing, I don't speak Portuguese) (video), that seems to raise his notability to some degree. Gccwang (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Admittedly, it's difficult to evaluate the cited references properly, working just from the Google translations. But, from what I can see, the coverage is marginal at best. The article itself is written in a blatantly promotional tone, which further convinces me this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Pridatko[edit]

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

This page seems to primarily be a promotional page for Lenny Pridatko and his businesses (book, publishing company that has only published his works, etc.). I do not see anything here that shows he is notable and that this article should be on Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the page to comply with wikipedia's policies against self-promotion. Shmendr (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated some of this deleted text: the Awards section is not promotional as such, and is relevant to consideration of whether the subject meets the Notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not returning reliable 3rd party material on the subject and his work; nor do the awards listed in the article provide enough to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria at this stage in his career. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 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 ♔ 20:46, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1) the article has been edited solely by a WP:SPA. Admittedly, it is new, but this doesn't confer confidence. 2) the awards themselves are not notable. There are about 100 finalists for the Eric Hoffer award each year. The indieFab organization appears to be a two-person team that exists to promote indie publishing. The award there is a Finalist, not a winner. The Beverly Hills award: "Beverly Hills Book Awards is a trademark of Smarketing". So as far as I can see, all of the third party resources are marketing and promotion organizations. LaMona (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProjeQtOr[edit]

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

Has not received coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article in the French Wikipedia (created yesterday) contains the same references. I could not find additional sources in French or English. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a book concidered as a reliable second source ? Démarche et outil de gestion de portefeuille de projets informatiques

Here are some other references, that were not included in the article to keep it clear :

Request in the french wikipedia to add ProjeQtOr in the Project Management Software Comparison list : Discussion:Comparaison des logiciels de gestion de projet
A Master Thesis not dealing with project management including citation and short description : Web Application Development Utilizing Cloud Virtual Machine
List of all PM Tools that are alternatives to ProjeQtOr : ProjeQtOr alternatives for All Platforms listing 30 alternative PM Tools, including leaders on the market.
Summary of PM Tools by a well know (in France) PM Consulting Expert : 16 logiciels de gestion de projets web et open source and some links about Philippe Scoffoni himself : The web site of his society, an interview on local TV (about PM & Open Source) , some articles in "Les Echos"
Several PM Consulting Societies referencing ProjeQtOr (or PRoject'Or RIA its previous name) : Alsynea, Open DSI, Salto Consulting
Some Vulnerablity analysis commmited on the web : [72], [73],[74],[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],
Anothor Quick Reference from a PM Consultant during an interview : Un interview avec Mickaël Ruau, Formateur à l’AFPA et Consultant en gestion du cycle de vie du logiciel
Short description on list of tools for the project leader : Débuter comme chef de projet Web. Quels outils ?
Short description on Free & Open Source Tools website : ProjectOr RIA: mieux gérer vos projets
A description by a "Web & Network school" comparing ProjeQtOr to Project Libre : LES LOGICIELS OPEN SOURCE DE GESTION DE PROJET
Some CVs from PM Consultants including ProjeQtOR in Competence list : [86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94],[95]

Any advise about links that could be included in the article is Welcome.

Babynus (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Babynus[reply]

Only to say that we use ProjeQtOr inside our organization in Quebec, Canada.

§Simon Tremblay 17:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidou (talk • contribs)

Please see contribution in Talk as well.
Cleverchild (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:46, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 20:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe jmmbb contribution to the article would rather take place here, in the discution. Any advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.237.206.127 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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