Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 August	25 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 merge to Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka. Tone 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka University Model United Nations Association[edit]

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

This article is about a students association which is not notable enough. Might be included in ~~DU's entry~~ Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka. --» nafSadh did say 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG going with the references given. Would have supported merger with University of Dhaka but that will give undue weight to the subject. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are hundreds of clubs like this and few are notable. There is evidence of self promotion in the refs given - the Daily sun article states "The writer studies at the Department of Development Studies, Dhaka University and founder member, DUMUNA". We need to see independent sources. IMO this organisation is not notable Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^^This is just one reference written by a DUMUNA member, but the reference is from Daily Sun a popular English newspaper in Bangladesh. Other references are completely independent from DUMUNA, please check!

Author of Daily Sun event news is, quote: "The writer studies at the Department of Development Studies, Dhaka University and founder member, DUMUNA"--» nafSadh did say 21:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only one reference, what about other references? They are totally independent from the subject. Geek013 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NewAge is the only credible newspaper; others (Notunbarta, Somkal, AmarDesh) being notoriously known for reporting hoaxes, fake or false news are somewhat not credible. --» nafSadh did say 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are credible sources, ask any Bangladeshi. There is even wikipedia pages on Amar Desh and Samakal. Samakal's editor Golam Sarwar is a recipient of Ekushe Podok. Geek013 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me you do not regularly make fun of these newspaper for being unutterably irresponsible. Everyone is turning itself into Priyo or JayJayDin. Even Prothom-Alo is losing trust. Ask any other Bangladeshi. --» nafSadh did say 15:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you are putting Priyo News over Prothom Alo, Samakal, Amar Desh. Priyo is just an online news site whereas those three are popular newspapers in Bangladesh, in fact Priyo itself sometimes sources its news from those three newspapers. Geek013 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good LORD! You totally comprehended my statement wrong! I said, everyone is losing their level trust and becoming as unreliable as Priyo. I hope you'd comprehend properly this time. (in case, in Bengali: প্রায় সব পত্রিকাই প্রিয়'র মত ভূয়া হয়ে যাচ্ছে । N.B.: সমকাল, আমার দেশ এদের অনলাইন সেকশন রিলায়েবল না।) --» nafSadh did say 18:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are saying every Bangladeshi newspaper is becoming unreliable? I thought Wikipedia is free from biasness against any country. Geek013 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be kept because it is about a famous students organization of Dhaka University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek013 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some ways to evaluate whether or not it is famous enough (WP:Notability) to deserve a standalone article of its own. This entry reads like a self authored, self promoting article bolstered with some references which do not actually indicate enough notability. With so many clubs at DU, it is better to maintain an article listing all its clubs. --» nafSadh did say 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:Notability and I still think this article should be kept because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, please check the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek013 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - no objective reader would consider that this student group passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why? Geek013 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable person could not tell how important the organization was by looking at objective facts such as number of members, impact on the larger University or peer institutions, notable alumni, or significant coverage in independent sources. The information is currently Not even wrong; it fails the basic test of an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the references are reliable sources and have significant coverage. Geek013 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It is my opinion that student groups in South Asia have a lot more prestige than they do in many other places in the world. This one meets WP:GNG as well as can be expected with English language Daily Sun coverage and if it has been covered in Bangla also, then I think that adds weight to keeping this. Information without citations could be removed to improve this article and prevent it from going astray, but it seems like a fair article to me and it would be undue to merge it with Dhaka University. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka. It is a better fit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka - There is already a page which lists a number of student groups at the University of Dhaka. There's no reason why this organization merits a separate article. Upjav (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there are many references? Geek013 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka .As per Bearian this student group clearly not does not pass WP:GNG on its own.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? There are many references to pass notability. Geek013 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka per above. Checking Lexis Advance news hits shows four instances of rather trivial coverage from local news sources. The provided sources in the article are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Really, this should be a delete, but it's a reasonable redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted by Bearian. Fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:59, 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 05:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curve-controlled modeling[edit]

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

A spammer listed this article in their Wikipedia Portfolio and considering that I suspect that the content is problematic. The only reliable source currently cited is this poorly cited paper. A search for other possible sources in google and gscholar only turned up this which clearly isn't much use. At present the subject doesn't appear to meet the GNG. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete—Good nom; after poking around I don't have anything to add other than the cited recent patent may be what's driving the activity. Regardless, I'm not seeing coverage sufficient to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of RS for this topic independent of the author of the the term. Thus the topic fails notability criteria per WP:GNG. The article itself seems somewhat promotional of the technique. --Mark viking (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as found no evidence of any WP:Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:15, 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 delete. Tone 17:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Martin[edit]

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

Youth footballer, does not meet standards of WP:NFOOTY. Article speedy'ed in 2013, still fails any notability. Author may also have a WP:COI or it may be an WP:AUTO. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 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) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This article appears to be a hoax. – Michael (talk) 19:11, 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) 12:25, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jur P. van den Berg[edit]

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

Multiple complainants on talk page are correct--this assistant prof is non-notable. Their opinions should be added to this debate, should the closing admin have any doubts. Deprodded, alas. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Link to Google Scholar Seems to have written articles that are cited by others. Seems to have a reasonable h-index that suggest passing criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). By the way: the de-prodding was 3.5 years ago, most of complains are even older. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, his h-index number of 25 is shockingly low for his field. Take as a counter-examples Sebastian Thrun, with an h of 116 by your same tool, or Nick Jennings (computer scientist) with an h of 103. Or do I have to list all the professors of robotics and artificial intelligence to make my case? Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Pulling out two not-particularly-random samples isn't helpful. Here's an incomplete list of CS academics with h>=40. I think we can lower the bar to include more than these folks. I'm told the rule-of-thumb for CompSci departments in tier-1 research universities is h>=20 to become a full professors. That's an arbitrary line (and I'm sure it's higher at Harvard and lower at UGeorgia), but I think it reliably shows significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is he still an assistant professor? I'm sure you have no answer that wouldn't lead people to think you meant "delete". Abductive (reasoning) 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant keep. There may be several reasons that a star assistant professor isn't offered early tenure, ranging from the dean not having an additional budget line at the moment to political considerations within the department. If you want to make an argument that assistant professors are inherently non-notable, I'd be interested to hear it. I think your stronger argument would be to focus on the section of WP:ACADEMIC that I quoted above: show me how a 20+ h-index is not a significant impact on their discipline. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it's a little WP:TOOSOON, this is a high-citation field, and all but one of his high-citation papers has a much more notable co-author (the exception being the ICRA 2006 one). But this looks to me like the record of someone on the cusp of being promoted from assistant to associate at a good research university, and I think already demonstrates enough impact for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H index of 25 satisfies WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 03:39, 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. Tone 17:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JUNTAMURA[edit]

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

Unsourced and, as far as can be told from the barely intelligible content, no real indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any third-party sources or in-depth coverage, it's hard to see how basic notability has been established here, and the article appears to be a promotional effort. --DAJF (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just MT from Japanese, so has zero value. (Anyone who wants MT of the Japanese article can get it; we should not be cluttering up WP with textual junk.) Imaginatorium (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) And anyway WP style is to use English capitalisation etc, not Japanese. Since the person's real name is {Tamura, Jun} (permute to taste), it should probably be JunTamura, or Jun Tamura, to normalise the erratic Japanese "style". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 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. Tone 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Farnsworth[edit]

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

Farnsworth does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. He wrote biographies that were pretty widely reviewed in independent, reliable sources. Some of those reviews are now reflected in the entry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:25, 24 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added reviews, such as [1], [2] and [3], satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:38, 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) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bosworth Independent College[edit]

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

Against WP:NOTADVERTISING the article isn't an encyclopaedic entry as it is just an advert Matthewm192 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I edited the article for neutrality. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Eastmain has edited it for neutrality.I have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite obviously per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES . Nominator has only 197 edits and shouldn't be patrolling pages whether he may be right or wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concern of the nominator has now been resolved by editorial action. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as above, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Upjav (talk) 17:23, 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 redirect to Federal Signal Corporation. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federal 3T22[edit]

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

Non notable article about a model of siren that although is probably widespread, is not known well enough outside of the siren fanbase to warrant its own article (along with many other articles that pertain to a specific siren model). Not to mention it is almost all trivia, barely long enough to be a stub, has no references whatsoever, and grammatically incorrect. MikeM2011 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless referenced to show notability. As stated above, probably fairly widespread things, but apart from the people that test them every so often (is there really a fanbase?), no-one will have heard of them. Heard them, yes, and probably cursed them, but not known whether they were Federal 3T22s or BloggsCo SuperBlasters or even Vukov SCR34Ms. Peridon (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a "fanbase", these are civil defence sirens. There is an enormous "fanbase" for all forms of militaria. James500 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federal Signal Corporation: [4] [5]. James500 (talk) 07:33, 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. Deor (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatotherapy[edit]

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

No references, since creation, other than to website promoting dubious non-scientific WP:FRINGE claims. – S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion is made in this article to indicate that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Srich32977's comments. Lacks sources/coverage. Only based off of one website, and I'm not seeing much about thanatotherapy elsewhere. Upjav (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Thanatotherapy" appears to translate to "death therapy". There are a few obscure references to the term, the first GBook hit appears to be very tounge-in-cheek, that predate the material in this article. I would be OK with a redirect to Thanatology, but it is a very unlikely search term so I'm equally OK with "delete". Location (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superb catch on "death therapy". As the "supporting" website was in Russian, I had simply scanned the Google translate version of the various pages. But Location's finding spurred me on to further research. So I Googled the name of the article creator – "Ole Dankwarth". Seems the real person is a naturopath in Germany. With Location's comments in mind, I'd say WP has been the victim of a hoax (really? how could this be true?), and numerous editors unwittingly came along to "improve" the article over the years. I would not desire to perpetuate the hoax via a redirect. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hall (musician)[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 Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are citations in the article which unfortunately are now deadlinks, but they are still valid and there are plenty of other sources around. Anyone who knows about reggae knows that there was a relatively small group of musicians who defined the sound in the 60s and 70s, and Richard Hall was one of these. As well as playing on hundreds of top reggae albums and singles in the 1970s he was also one of the stars of the film Rockers. --Michig (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) As above.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 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. Tone 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Hollis[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did just a quick search, but could find no significant 3rd party sources. LaMona (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veriflora[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. This has been tagged for notability for the last six and a half years, and no one has yet established notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be a commercial program based on an ISO standard. The Veriflora web site gives this as the top motivator for their customers: "Build brand value for their products" - nothing wrong with that, but confirms that this is a product, not, for example, a government standards program. Only 6 links come up with a Google search, one of which is this WP article. I'd say that this is a small and insignificant commercial enterprise, and should not have a WP article. delete LaMona (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure to meet WP:GNG or any other criteria that I think applies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 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. Tone 17:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Idea[edit]

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

An article by a WP:SPA whose account name matches the company founder. Long-term unreferenced, and the most that I am finding is co-production noted on two IMDB items. Multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) are not identifying any evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this company is ultimately notable enough for an article. It asserts that it's a major company but there's a dearth of coverage in any usable sources. Coverage might exist in other languages, but in my history I've noticed that major film and film companies in other countries (and this one says it has headquarters in the US) tend to have some sort of coverage in English that would help point to coverage in another language. Other than some junk hits, there just isn't anything out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page repeats the name of the co-production company for the two short films listed on IMDB, as well as indicating that the founder of this firm may still be at school. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no evidence of notability. Frmorrison (talk) 14:04, 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 keep. Notability is not in question, and the poor machine translation has since been reverted and the stub expanded somewhat. Nobody seems to advocate deletion of the article in the present state. Sandstein 15:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City Church of Bremgarten[edit]

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

This "article" is an extremely sloppy machine translation from German to a language that somehow resembles English. Almost every sentence is incomprehensible gibberish, for example: "The double-sided to two meters and widened as the nave nave is formed adjacent to the enclosed on three sides high choir." As the German original is a featured article this can be considered a linguistic rape (sorry for the harsh words). Rewriting this "article" to something worthwile would take hours. As nobody bothered to that in the last one and a half years, it's highly unlikely that anyone will try to save the "article" in the foreseeable future. Better put it on the guillotine. Voyager (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the current translation is deemed irreparable, rollback to the stub version before the bad translation job: [6]. The primary reference from the German article should be added, so its not unreferenced: Arnold Nüscheler, Gotteshäuser der Schweiz – historisch-antiquarische Forschungen, Viertes Heft, Gebr. Karl & Nikolaus Benziger, Einsiedeln, 1884. Perhaps someone will be inspired to do a real translation. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before the bad translation there was exactly one sentence and the picture. If we decide to keep the article someone should definetively add some more relevant informations. If nobody does that its with the arguments of Voyager not worth keeping the article. Somehow or other we should undo the bad translation. 2A02:1205:5010:78C0:ECA5:4D5D:D997:7E83 (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete the current machine translation is imho unacceptable. A new shorter article or stub with some basic information can be created after the deletion. If in the meantime somebody reset the article to the earlier version and extended that one or simply replaced the current machine translation by new short article, then that would be acceptable as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete / back to translation request. I created this article in 2009 as a translation request stub per Wikipedia:Translation ("create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, explaining or defining the subject of the article in a sentence or two; then immediately tag your stub article with a translation template"). It didn't work, nobody translated the (very good) German article into English; instead, four years later this completely muddled, incomprehensible machine translation was added. The machine translation would need a total rewrite from the first to the last sentence, so I propose to remove it - I don't feel strongly about the article itself; as the translation request wasn't successful for years, it seems to me it could be deleted as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've tagged and reported this for attention at WP:Pages needing translation into English, which also has a section for bad translations. Notability does not appear to be in question, so there's no point in losing the article because someone botched the expansion (which is surprisingly common). I'd fix it up myself, but I prefer not to work on churches; if nobody does, I advocate undoing the addition and returning the "expand from German" template. There is no deadline. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a ref demonstrating notability and commented out the bad translation, so that now it can be removed or rewritten (or hopefully both).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Yngvadottir and it Passes WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a side note: I'm actually not sure that the article should be named City Church of Bremgarten. When I created it as a translation request back in 2009, I just translated "Stadtkirche Bremgarten" into English (another translation would be "Bremgarten City Church"), but if there's no established English name, maybe it should remain at its German name Stadtkirche Bremgarten? Also, I'm not sure whether to call Bremgarten a "city" or a "town", often a difficulty when translating from German, as German Stadt can mean both and there is no clear distinction. Bremgarten got city rights in medieval times and it has a historic city center, so it is considered a traditional "Stadt" and not a "Dorf" (village) despite having fewer than 10'000 inhabitants, but I'm really not sure whether to choose "city" or "town"... it's rather small, a Kleinstadt, which suggests town, but then its historical status also may suggest city. Sorry for the digression... Gestumblindi (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that we have any standard, it should probably be St. Nicholas' Church, Bremgarten, which neatly avoids the need to translate stadt. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally regard buildings with the kind of heritage status possessed by this church as fairly automatically notable anyway, but a quick look at the corresponding German article shows it to be well-referenced - even if the idiot who did the previous machine translation just pushed the text through Google and effectively left the references and illustrations behind. We need a proper translation, with the references and illustrations included - but until then, this stub will do. PWilkinson (talk) 14:35, 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 no consensus. Almost a month, and I don't see a clear consensus developing. Deor (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Smith (actress)[edit]

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

I do not see enough evidence of her meeting meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. While she has acted in over 40 shows and films, practically all of them were just brief cameos or single episode guest appearances. Her role as Mary Winchester on Supernatural is not substantial either since she has only appeared in seven of the almost 200 episodes that have aired so far. She has no awards or recognition for her work, no significant fan base (except occasional mentioning in Supernatural wikis and fan sites), and barely any coverage in major entertainment news sites. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:01, 7 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 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because she doesn't have a fanbase or awards doesn't mean she doesn't have notability. A regular guest star on major series, and redlinking this would be embarassing in SPN articles. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be an issue with her name being so common (sometimes it is even "Sam Smith" which is even more common). When I googled this search string -- ("samantha smith") -Maine -plane -crash -Andropov -Soviet (actress OR winchester OR paranormal OR supernatural) -- and perused the photos, it was not clear to me exactly who was the real Samantha Smith, like there are at least two different actresses with the name Samantha Smith. If the photos are all of the same person, ie Samantha Smith the actress, then when she is sometimes blonde, sometimes brunette, with different looks, (needed obviously to play different roles) well it is somewhat difficult to ascertain with certainty exactly who is the Samantha Smith. Is it this person? Or this person? Or this person? Or this person? If we look at Getty images, seems like there are two different persons. That said, using the best search string I could concoct, after searching 10 SERP pages, I did not see much in the way of multiple independent reliable nontrivial sources as required by the WP:GNG although it may be there was so much fan cruft that it needs somebody to search through perhaps another 10 to 20 SERP pages. Or, maybe she is a character actor who somewhat flies under the radar of name recognition?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate. Has had multiple roles in many notable films and TV shows including 7 episodes of Supernatural which even the nom admits. That there are over 200 episodes doesn't magically make her re-occurring appearances disappear.--Oakshade (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of her film roles seem to be notable (we lack articles on these films eve), and her TV roles tend towards 1 episode.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Yes she's been on major shows but we can't keep articles based on that~~, There needs to be some form of notability which isn't what I'm seeing right now. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:NACTOR - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - we can.--Oakshade (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~No we can't - 1/2 Episodes aren't significant roles so thus actually fails NACTOR entirely. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not sure what you're saying. Are you claiming the multiple reoccurring roles and many guest roles on multiple notable television shows didn't happen ("1/2 Episodes") and that her resume is fradulent? --Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I!, ofcourse not, I thought significant meant something else hence the above ..., Anyway sorry for any confusion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:55, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bell (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO, [7]. His music has not been in any nation's national charts, nor has he been nominated for any major awards, nor has any of his works been the subject of the works of others. Further more there is a distinct lack of any in depth significant "multiple published secondary sources" about the subject. AlanS (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Clearly non-notable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:MUSIC criteria #1 and #7. The Daily Yomiuri refers to him as "a leading figure in minimal techno" (10 November 2005). The Belfast Telegraph refers to him as "the Detroit minimal techno pioneer" (as does The Beijinger). There is coverage in Allmusic here and here. According to The New York Times, Bell, "a longtime minimal techno producer, is known for his sleek but restless style, and for an excellent 2000 compilation, The Button-Down Mind of Daniel Bell (Tresor), a surprisingly warm disc full of precise party music". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. In addition to the coverage listed above, here's another Allmusic review [8] and one in Les Inrockuptibles [9] (snippet view). Metro Times picked one of Bell's recordings as one of the "Five records that changed techno" [10]. Rolling Stone picked one of his mixes as one of the 20 best of (the first half of) 2013 [11]. Bell also appears to have an entry in this book [12], though it's harder to access because only snippets are viewable (here's a bit of the text [13]). These sources demonstrate that enough material exists to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 17:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage found clearly shows that the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 17:42, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 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. Wizardman 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Jensen Spirit Award[edit]

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

There is no explanation of the notability of this award. No sources. And, I can't find any reliable source with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The award exists, but it's one in a basket of end-of-season minor awards most sports teams have. Coverage is limited to "Sox player Soandso was honored with this award, which is voted by the Boston chapter of the BWAA, and is awarded for playing with spirit and determination," listed along the team MVP, unsung hero, pitcher of the year and other such. This is a classic definition of WP:ROUTINE, and certainly fails WP:GEOSCOPE and the GNG's requirement for "significant detail." Ravenswing 21:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Phelan[edit]

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

Promotion for a non-notable artist. His name appears in some websites promoting this or that exhibition, but that is it. Average guy. damiens.rf 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, cannot find any reliable reference to indicate notability. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one surprised me. I did a HighBeam search and a number of reliable sources came up. I added eight to the article where appropriate. He clearly meets WP:GNG nationally and internationally.I am One of Many (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of extra sources added by User:I am One of Many. PWilkinson (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of work, OK footnotes.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:21, 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 21:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Beaudreault[edit]

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

Non-notable man that was at Vietnam and once worked as a news anchor. damiens.rf 16:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 19:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls way short of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. --Daniel (talk) 20:28, 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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Vescovi[edit]

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

Basketball player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NHOOPS. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Vescovi played in the Korean Basketball League, which is the top national professional league in Korea. However, the sourcing is very thin otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is complete mess. More importantly, I find no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would get this past WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this gets deleted, I recommend salting it because the creator has been constantly removing maintenance tags and the AfD link from the article over and over, despite numerous warnings. It seems highly likely that the user will try to recreate the article even if consensus is to have it deleted. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, check out the article's edit history. This disruptive editing indicates a high probability the user will re-create the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. No independent sources to verify his playing in KBL, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG otherwise. Article creator has just earned a one-week block for removing AfD tags from this article immediately after the expiration of a 24-hour block for the same activity. --Finngall ^talk 00:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable basketball player. Fails specific notability guideline for not having played in top-tier league per WP:NBASKETBALL, and lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources sufficient to satisfy general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. SALT per Jrcla's comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. P. Devitte[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE TinaG (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having officiated senior international match, he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: - what is the difference between this person and Takumi Ogawa? Both pass NFOOTBALL but fail GNG, yet you !voted 'keep' at one and 'delete' at the other. Giant Snowman 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:. The distinction is one of recentism. In the case of a footballer who retired only last year, I would expect to find plenty of sources available online, making it pretty easy to tell just how clearly he fails WP:GNG. In the case of a referee whose most significant accomplishment was over a hundred years ago, a proper WP:GNG evaluation is going to be all but impossible since sources are not going to be as readily available. I should add that reading his WorldReferee profile makes it clear that other sources do exist. I also disagree with the premise that he only barely meets WP:NFOOTBALL. A player with at least three senior international matches would be an obvious keep even if it was their only claim to notability. I see no reason for it to be different for referees, as in both cases the people in question would have to be well established at the domestic level to make the jump to the international level. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Giant Snowman 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has refereed at least ten senior international matches [14], he passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NFOOTY. Given that he was refereeing over a century ago, ten matches is a reasonable amount over a five year career. Also concerned about recentism. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 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. Deor (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Parishes[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Rationale left by 109.176.223.232 was "The term "Hundred Parishes" only appears to be used by the Hundred Parishes Society, an organisation founded this year." Protonk (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is incorrect to claim that the organisation was founded this year. I apologise that this impression may have been left by my original wording of the section covering the Society, which I have now amended. The concept arose in 2009, a steering group developed in 2010, the name was settled by 2011, and formal support was registered in 2012. The section "An ancient area - a new title" has been added and then expanded to explain the evolution of the Hundred Parishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeskeyUK (talk • contribs)

Keep. To the nominator, I don't understand at all what you mean by the sentence "Procedural nom." I don't know what a procedural nomination would be. Does that mean that you don't nominate it yourself, don't believe it should be deleted, and you are merely following some procedure that you are required to, or something? It is not a sentence. And you refer to a "rationale" that is where, part of what process? It is not explained. I also don't see any support for deletion. The nomination provides no mention of wp:BEFORE being completed or conducting any other search for sources. It gives no comment on sources in the article. Perhaps the article has changed since nominated (i am not checking), but there are 19 inline references in the article now. It looks to me like some of them are appropriate to have in the article in covering some detail but do not specifically support usage of the term Hundred Parishes, but others of them have titles that involve the Hundred Parishes term and do support it. Seeing no valid deletion rationale, i currently !vote "Keep". Also, it is a brand new article --just a week old-- and I think it would be more appropriate to discuss sources and need to provide more to establish notability perhaps AT THE TALKPAGE OF the article, first, not launch an AFD that is premature. There is some guideline about alternatives to AFD that suggests for new articles, such an alternative. --doncram 01:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm completing a deletion nomination made here for an IP editor who can't technically complete the nomination. Sorry for not making that more clear. Protonk (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for explaining. This refreshes me, I have seen nominations like this before; you or someone else gave me info sometime a few months ago. I object in princip;e, because there is no one accountable for the nomination, and here, the nomination is another poor one. It shouldn't have been nominated for several reasons (that wp:BEFORE apparently not performed, that per wp:BITE we shouldn't harsh on a new contributor and wipe out all their contributions, that there is no deletion nominator making a case and responding to questions); and I feel we all are dupes to be following the wish of an IP and a cooperating agent, with no one really responsible. Or, Protonk, do you take responsibility for this nomination? But thanks for info anyhow. About the general problem, an RFC at Talk page of wp:AFD (?) or somewhere should be opened. --do ncr am 23:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the formal age of the organization, this has no bearing on the notability of the subject. There are now sufficient independent sources (I know because I located and added several of them) to establish that it meets WP:GNG, though it could certainly use more. These will presumably be added as the article and the project are developed. Both should be given time now that it has been established that the name is not purely an invention of the Society or the connected editor that created the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I took the liberty of marking TeskeyUK's comment as a !vote to Keep, since I am certain that is what they intended. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the IP was unable to post their rationale to open the discussion here, does that mean they are also unable to participate in the discussion once opened? Dwpaul ^Talk 03:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Unregistered users can edit AFD pages, but cannot create them (like they can edit any (unprotected) article, but cannot create a new article). –anemoneprojectors– 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then why is the unregistered user not responding to anything here? Why not explain anything? I consider this one more data point on why unregistered users should not be allowed to open AFDs, period. I do object to a registered user assisting in this, and probably not accepting responsibility either. --do ncr am 23:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The age of any organization has absolutely no relevance to notability.It passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Call for closure with "Keep". There is no one supporting deletion here. The nominator is editor Protonk, who takes no position on the AFD (and in my view should not have nominated this). Protonk's nomination is on behalf of an I.P. editor who has not participated, and is unknown, and who seems not to have performed wp:BEFORE, and could have been completely uninformed. If the I.P. editor was accountable, and was contacted, he/she could well choose to withdraw the nomination. But there's no way to even contact them. There is no coherent deletion rationale, and all coherent arguments are to Keep. --doncram 23:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator was 109.176.223.232, not Protonk. Protonk was simply following instructions and starting the discussion on 109.176.223.232's behalf because unregistered users cannot start AFD discussions. If Protonk hadn't started this, someone else would have done, as that's the procedure. –anemoneprojectors– 08:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I believe Protonk is not taking responsibility, and the I.P. editor is not taking responsiblity (and is even perhaps unaware of feedback to learn from that their nomination is being viewed as nonsense, and perhaps others would have served the undeserving I.P. if Protonk did not. Yep. And I do call for closure, as no one is supporting deletion. --do ncr am 00:52, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (University of California)[edit]

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

See post at WP: Help Desk. User is unable to find any reference to this phrase used with respect to University of California system. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a number of sources which have rankings for number of admissions and such but none that actually use the term "Big Three". This appears to be a case of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:MADEUP. Dismas|^(talk) 18:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Dismas - none of the cited sources actually appear to use the term or be about the concept. and searches for "big three" universities are leading only to the Harvard-Princeton-Yale trifecta -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and comments above . --Jersey92 (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The link to the OPs deletion rationale on the help desk is insufficient as it will soon be archived. Below is a copy of the original post. SpinningSpark 09:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am doubt is it a self-study written by the user himself/ herself: Big Three (University of California). Not just because I never find such a term in University of California materials, search in Google (except directed to Wikipedia), but also, you may not find such a term in ALL footnotes and external source he/ she cites. Please also note that the user only creates this page, and posts the link to other pages after registration e.g. Princeton University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.184.231.1 (talk • contribs)
Delete This is basically a rather idiosyncratic OR POV FORK of University of California. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - UC San Diego?!?! Really?!?!? I've never encountered this term and suspect it is a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure whether to call this a POV fork, or an essay, but it doesn't belong in WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have sources, but even opinion pieces - which this clearly is - base their info on something somewhere. Not encyclopedic , per DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 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 keep. Just a few words on Stevie is the man!'s comment that "these guidelines is that they are widely ignored" in connection with WP:BEFORE. There is no requirement that the nominator, or anybody else, actually attempt to improve the article, only that they look for sources. WP:BEFORE is certainly not ignored by AfD admin closers. If suitable sources are found then the article is generally kept, regardless of its current state. The only cases where a deletion of a sourcable article occurs is if the article is so bad (such as outright advertising) that the consensus of the debate is that it could only be improved by blowing it up and starting over SpinningSpark 09:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Burke Belknap[edit]

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

Apparently entirely non-notable member of a probably notable family. Both William Burke Belknap (1811–1884) and Belknap Inc. have entries, for example, in John E. Kleber (2001). The Encyclopedia of Louisville, as does Morris Burke Belknap, father of the first William; but this William Burke Belknap does not. It is not clear which of them the privately printed memoir relates to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Delete~~Keep. It's possible this subject is notable, but the current content/references doesn't convey it, and as the nominator said, there is confusion about the memoir. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~That is not an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

The confusion about the memoir is resolved. It was written in 1870, fifteen years before this person was born. OCLC 39138792, Memorandum of the family of Wm B. Belknap – William Burke Belknap – Made at Louisville Ky. 1870. I've removed it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your naked declaration doesn't negate my argument for deletion. Now, the article is reduced to still too little to warrant inclusion. There isn't anything that makes the subject notable at this point. The article hasn't been improved to the point of clarifying the notability of the subject as of yet. It still could be, so that's why I use 'Weak'. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N notability is independent of articles on Wikipedia or the sources or absence of sources in those articles. Unscintillating (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that demonstrate notability. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed two offline newspaper articles and twelve online sources. How many more sources do you want? Unscintillating (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would say Keep and Merge if there were an article to merge into, but there's not at this point. It would naturally merge into Belknap Inc.. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has turned up that the subject was a state representative, although the information comes from a likely unreliable source. I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep in hopes that a reliable source can be found. There are many, many state representative articles here in the Wikipedia, many of which are for otherwise non-notable persons. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to WP:Drafts – non-notable. Looking beyond the article, it appears to be one written to bolster another article (which has recently been expanded upon by a COI editor). Basically this it is about a branch of a family history, but not encyclopedic. – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Upon further consideration, our article creator is a newbie and might better use Drafts to work out the article. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Incubate~~ ~~Keep or merge~~ AfD is not for non-notable topics with encyclopedic material, where the topic as a redirect belongs in the encyclopedia, and the material can be merged. Start an RfC is you can't get consensus on the talk page of the article. In addition, this article has been improved. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reverting 32 edits, including material properly sourced with an inline citation, nominator stated about the content contributor, in this diff, "...Revert WP:COI edits - COI editors are STRONGLY ADVISED not to edit the article directly, but instead to suggest changes on the talk-page;..." It has now been four days since the content contributor edited Wikipedia. With more online review, I have found pictures of the topic preserved at the Eckstrom library at the University of Louisville. Histories of Kentucky indicate that there are four or five wp:notable Belknap's and the company itself (see http://www.wkfinetools.com/hUS/hardw_Belknap/belknap-index.asp) in its centenary in 1940 described itself as the "THE WORLD'S LARGEST HARDWARE PLANT". Changing !vote to "incubate", as the article is no longer the one that I !voted keep, and has lost its champion. Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to keep, with sourcing shown from many vantage points including Boston, Montreal, Salt Lake City, Spokane, Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C.; influence on legislation in 46 states; lasting effects in Louisville and Oldham County, direct attention from President Hoover due to his work. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you clarify where in policy or guidelines your position comes from? AfD is about discussing the deletion of an article where there is question about inclusion for various reasons. Changing to a redirect is an argument one can make in such proceedings. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who edit an AfD page are provided a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines, which is better known as WP:BEFORE. Point C1 there states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." "Normal editing" means those things that can be done without admin tools, c.f. WP:Editing policy. See also WP:ATD, which is a policy.

Note that delete-and-redirect requires admin tools and is covered by WP:Deletion policy, while redirect-without-deletion is covered by WP:Editing policy. The redirect and merge !votes were added in 2009, and are not well integrated into the AfD scheme. Whether or not a merge/redirect consensus at an AfD is binding beyond the end of the AfD remains disputed. This is part of a power struggle that would give more power to AfD !voters and AfD closing administrators. Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What's interesting about these guidelines is that they are widely ignored. It's actually rather humorous when we see a lot of AfDs started without any attempt to fix articles first. I actually agree that this article was prematurely submitted, but it happens in so many cases that it almost seems silly to even comment about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article that should have been written is Belknap Inc., a historical business in Louisville, not one about a member of the family that started it, unless they were notable on their own accord. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 09:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This edit by the nominator has removed 6 references and more than 4K of material from the article. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have examined one of the references removed, and confirm that it shows in the Boston Evening Transcript of Feb. 8, 1907, that WBB was reported as Phi Betta Kappa from Yale (New Haven, CN). Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a source I found using WP:BEFORE D1. It reports that WBB graduated from Yale in 1908, and that in 1915 he was a second-year graduate student in Harvard economics, having won a scholarship for the third year. Unscintillating (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This chap is verifiable, but doesn't have significant coverage of him, fails WP:Notability (people). If he were a state representative, then a reliable source for that needs to be found, before he would meet WP:POLITICIAN. Absent that, there is no basis for retaining this article. And yes, I looked at the deleted material. --Bejnar (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[15] might suffice. Other sources say that he was in office from 1924-1928 and from 1934-1935. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would think there would be Courier-Journal coverage of this subject's term in office. If anyone can get access to newspapers from this period, those can be used as references. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 16, 1986, One store put down, the roots of Belknap, Courier-Journal, p. E-2. This source has two or three paragraphs. This is newspaper material from 20 years after his death. WBB could have been president of Belknap but decided on farming. Land O' Goshen was 3600 acres. Taught economics at University of Louisville for 11 years. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[[User:Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)]] I am the writer of the article and, yes, I do have a COI if you consider that the subject William Burke Belknap, my husband's grand uncle, is a COI case. I have refrained from adding to the article partly because I am not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia procedures for discussion and partly because I thought I was not supposed to make changes while the article was being considered for deletion. Yes, I do have software access to old newspapers, including the Courier-Journal and think that with help, I could flesh out the article with numerous newspaper and website citations. I think that Land O' Goshen Farm, horsebreeding of the Kentucky saddlebred horse, academic career, philanthropy, political office, and Belknap Hardware Co. are all important aspects of this man's history.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a history of Louisville that explains that Ms. WBB gave land to the University of Louisville in the early 20th century. That land was sold and the donation was used to purchase and name what is now the Belknap campus of the University of Louisville, which is now the main academic campus. Another source identifies that the money came from the Belknap family. Another source talks also about the "Belknap family", so this is two more wp:notable topics in this group that are currently redlinks. Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a clipping I made searching Newspapers.com, which asserts notability. I think with some work, sources for an acceptable article could be found. I am One of Many (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sep. 8, 1965, Hardware heir and agriculturist, W. B. Belknap, dies at 80, Courier-Journal, p. B-1, retrieved 2014-08-23.

Notes: This is the bottom quarter of the page. It ties together many points found individually on the internet. Bachelor's Yale, Master's at Harvard, did not complete Ph.D., one-man economics dept. at UofL 1916-1927. State legislator, elected as Democrat in 1924, 1926, and 1934. Member of national groups dealing with inheritance-law taxation. Headed National Tax Association committee, whose work was adopted nationally in 1926, and suggestions from the committee were adopted in 46 states. Helped found and was first president of the national American Legislator's Assn, started on a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Trustee of Berea College most of the years from 1914 to death. 1952 4-year term as Vice-chairman of the Yale University Alumni Board. Prior to WWII, headed Kentucky League of British Victory, and the Louisville branch of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. World War I served with the Am. Red Cross in England and France. One of the founders and first president of the Falls Cities Co-operative Milk Producers Assn. Former head Kentucky Purebred Sheep Breeders Assn. President of American Saddle Horse Breeders Assn since 1956. Gallant Guy champion horse raised on Land o' Goshen Farm. WBB, 3 sisters, and step-mother bought the land for Belknap Campus. (The Louisville history I saw makes me think the word "bought" here should be read as "contributed to buying".) Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional search terms: Belnap, W. B. Belknap, William Belknap, William B. Belknap. Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional references

"Inheritance tax is principal topic of sessions. Utah Senator Declares great necessity exists for reform of revenue system of government". Deseret News. September 9, 1920. p. 8. Retrieved 2014-08-23. William B. Belknap of Louisville, Kentucky, chairman of the committee on inheritance taxes, gave a progress report on the subject. At present, he declared, state inheritance tax laws are in very much of a muddle. The committee, he declared, was not at all yet a unit on any proposed solution and the difficulties, and he invited suggestions from members of the association.

"Nag flickers". Spokane Daily Chronicle. June 8, 1939. p. 1. Retrieved 2014-08-23. William Belknap, a horse breeder of Kentucky, uses color movies of his horses to sell them to far-away prospects.

Louisville, KY (May 27, 1940). "Kentucky citizens urge aid to allies. Congress is asked to lift neutrality restrictions at Louisville meeting". The Montreal Gazette. p. 6. Retrieved 2014-08-23. William B. Belknap, former State legislator who acted as chairman of the meeting called by 21 civic and industrial leaders, told the audience he believed 'you express the sentiment of a large section of the American people.'

Harrisburg (October 16, 1933). "Traffic meet aims to pass uniform laws. Officials from 17 states will start Harrisburg sessions Friday. Fight restrictions. Height, weight and length of trucks and busses to be discussed". The Pittsburgh Press. p. 13. Retrieved 2014-08-23. ...organized by the American Legislators' Association...

"North Oldham Lions Club". Retrieved 2014-08-23. The North Oldham Lions Club was given a 25-acre park in 1973 which was to be preserved as community park in memory of William Belknap. The property included two buildings (one for a small business and the other for community meetings and gatherings)...

Nancy Stearns Theiss (April 30, 2014). "Oldham History. U.S. 42 was once 'Derby Highway'". Courier Journal. Retrieved 2014-08-23. Before Interstate 71....other popular stops along the road for Derby in Oldham County were the...Goshen Gardens (now owned by the North Oldham Lions Club)...Goshen Gardens, owned by William Belknap...
M. Susan Murnane (August 22, 2005). "Andrew Mellon's unsuccessful attempt to repeal estate taxes". Retrieved 2014-08-23. Belknap, who was also a Kentucky state legislator and chair of the NTA Inheritance Tax Committee, advocated federal estate tax repeal combined with the adoption of uniform state inheritance tax statutes.⁵⁹

Cite 59 from the previous source is:

59 William B. Belknap, "State and Federal Policies of Inheritance or Death Taxation," 11 Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 85-89 (1924).
This source reminds us that more sources can be found in Google scholar.
[16] is by itself a blog, but reports on the January 1945 issue of National Horseman, which itself talks about Land O'Goshen Farms, and has a picture of Pre-War-Stuff O'Goshen.

"Sheep. Local history index". Lexington Public Library. Retrieved 2014-08-23. "Sheep school draws hundreds of farmers"...conducted by the University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Accredited Purebred Breeders' Association opened this morning at the farm of William Belknap, near Goshen. Mr. Belknap's flock includes Southdowns and Ryelands...Record 657863. 07/29/1930. Leader.

"Hoover open legislators' meet". The Cornell Daily Sun. February 8, 1933. Retrieved 2014-08-23. The first interstate legislative assembly, convened in Washington...Left to right: William B. Belknap of Louisville, Ky...the President...Associated Press Photo

Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a fascinating exercise by Unscintillating, and a remarkable demonstration of the power of determination and the internet to unearth trivia. But let's be clear: none of this amounts to anything resembling notability. Specifically:
- Having hundreds of sheep-farmers meet on your farm does not make you notable
- Being in a room with the president does not make you notable
- Coming from a rich family does not make you notable
- Being at Yale does not make you notable
- Choosing to run a farm instead of sitting in an office in the family business does not make you notable
- Having a mother who is your father's wife does not make you notable (it used to be quite commonplace)
- Being someone's husband's great-uncle does not make you notable.

And so on. What makes someone notable for our purposes is having extended in-depth coverage of that person's actions and achievements in numerous independent reliable sources. This person doesn't seem to have any achievements, so seeking that extensive coverage may be a vain exercise.

A question: if this person had been in, let us say, Bulgaria, would these mentions (university graduate, involved in local politics, photographed with the president, chairman of the local sheep-farmers' association, etc.) have made him seem important enough to merit an article?

I accept the criticism that, when reverting a mass of non-encyclopaedic COI additions, I also removed a valid reference to this character having been at Yale; I apologise for that. I do not accept suggestions that I should have fixed the article WP:BEFORE listing it here. The fix for this page is deletion; I didn't add any sources as there weren't any to add. Please note that as I mentioned above, I believe that the other, famous, William Burke Belknap might merit an article here, as might the hardware store, if only because of the peculiar incompetence that led to its demise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick response on one point since this AfD could be closed at any moment. The picture with the president does not show wp:notability because of being pictured with the president, it shows wp:notability because the president was attracted to the work that Belknap was doing. The WP:N nutshell identifies "attracts attention" as a key component that identifies wp:notability. Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "Having hundreds of sheep-farmers meet on your farm does not make you notable", maybe and maybe not, but that is not the wp:notability shown by this source. This is an article in a Lexington, KY newspaper, which is 77 miles from Goshen. I don't literally know if Wikipedians consider the Lexington Leader to be a regional newspaper, but the successor newspaper, Lexington Herald-Leader, certainly is. We know from the obituary that Belknap was at one time the head of Kentucky Purebred Sheep Breeders Assn (caveat, the article instead names "Kentucky Accredited Purebred Breeders' Association"). Unscintillating (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N states in the lede, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true:

It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

WP:Notability (people) states in Paragraph 2, "Additional criteria", "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards."

WP:Notability (people) states in Paragraph 2.7.1, "Politicians...who have...[been] former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."

Unscintillating (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment |image-needed=yes|image-in=Louisville, Kentucky. Many are available but upload instructions are confusing, with many re-directs for templates. Would it be simpler to place photos in the "Summer of Monuments" appeal for photographs? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Kentucky state legislature. James500 (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Keep - Notable enough on a couple of counts. - Richfife (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- It says he served two terms as Kentucky State House Representative. That meets criteria for WP:Politician "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" Everything else in the article can be fought over regarding relevance, verifiability, etc, but the article seems clearly a keeper... —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A request for closure has been posted here. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 6 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 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Eldawoody[edit]

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

Seems to meet WP:1E Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Who will search for a police informant here, CIA or FBI? They have their own sources. WP is not a directory of police informants who are not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Delete per nom.--Canyouhearmenow 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only one article we clearly fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling his name brings up extensive coverage of him from very good sources including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera and CBS. I'll work on expanding the article. Qwertyzap (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was somewhat surprised to discover that he is very notable WP:GNG by searching HighBeam. I've added 10 reliable sources spanning 2006 to 2011, which should allow someone to expand it into a nice little article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG/BASIC demonstrated by addition of sources. Well done. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Well the community deem it notable despite my objections but yep moving on... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-Venture[edit]

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

As much as I absolutely hate to nominate this ... There's no evidence of any notability that I can find at all, Sadly a non notable bus company that Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In spite of some derring-do adventures (blown off a cliff! saved the driver!), this bus company does not appear to be notable. LaMona (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nu-Venture is a notable bus operator, "one of the five main operators in Kent". Two global multi-nationals dominate the county, with the other three being second tier players, all around the same size, but with different territories. It's the same situation across most of the UK, at least in the profitable areas. Like all these 2nd tier outfits, Nu-Venture have a long established presence and a significant market share, particularly in the sensitive subsidised market. Nu-Venture also has/had an unusual fleet, making it more notable than the average operator. All this notability will be reflected in the coverage in proper sources - books, magazines, trade journals. Google is about as useful for assessing notability in niche topic likes this as Wikipedia is - take a look at Transport in Kent for example (or even the Kent article) - who knew that there's apparently not even a single notable bus operator in the whole of Kent? There's not a lot you can write about bus operators if all you're doing is aggregating press releases found on Google. If Wikipedia is aiming to be "the largest encyclopedia in history, both in terms of breadth and in terms of depth.", then operators like Nu-Venture are well within scope. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Notforlackofeffort: - That's great and all but we need better sources for the article, If you can find more than what's there I would easily withdraw, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. Time. Willpower. Interest. All severely lacking. It's one thing to state the obvious, that the sources are out there, in the hope reason prevails, it's quite another to actually go get them. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Notforlackofeffort. Much as I hate buses, The company is notable enough to sustain an article. Needing improvement is never a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: - "The company is notable enough to sustain an article" - Please tell me where there's notability here? ... And I have concerns over the notability not the article overall so saying "Needing improvement is never a reason to delete an article" is rather pointless but I assume you haven't even bothered reading my rationale above?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:57, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the nutshell, wp:notability is that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time based on evidence. No one can pretend that this is hoax attention. Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to badger here but where's the notability? The only attention it gets is from those in Kent and that's pretty much it .... ?, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists isn't a reason for it to be kept, Other than a few minor news stories there's no verifiable evidence. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the WP:BEFORE D1 evidence that it is not notable? You told me once before that you check Google images. What did you find in this case? Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I search ALOT more than Images ? .... Well I've somehow found 2 books so meh may aswell keep it since there's some notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:18, 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. A7 Secret ^account 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph "Fito" Kahn[edit]

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

Autobio of non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inhereited from those he has worked with. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Jazz Alliance, which he founded. He does not appear to be notable for music, based on sources currently in the article or easily found. I did, however, find one Wall Street Journal article from 2007 which mentions him as an Austin investor. But nothing else readily found. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:16, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This will also be moved to List of C1 roads. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered C1[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOTABLE. TinaG (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move/disambiguate~~ as "Route C1 (disambiguation)". IMO The number C1 don't hold anything more than mere coincidence, and article does nothing more than to dab. between the Japanese highway and the American highway anyway. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to simply say to move this to Route C1 (which redirects here) and make it a standard disambiguation page. Then I noticed that Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title has over 900 similar lists. So I'm wondering if there was a reason why these were all titled as lists when they do seem to be more like disambiguation pages. From a sample of such lists, many are seven or eight years old (though this one was recently created), and were created and subsequently edited by multiple editors, so this listing scheme wasn't just the product of one lone wolf's idiosyncrasy. Deletion, in any event, is not called for here, and we should get some input from editors who work in this subject area before making any changes. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a set-index article, which functions similar to, but is not, a disambiguation page. As such, the rationale for deletion is invalid and the article should be kept to serve its purpose. As mentioned, there are nearly (if not more than) a thousand of these titled identically. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a set index article, which is distinct from a disambiguation page per WP:NOTDAB, and rename to List of C1 roads to match the naming convention set by List of A1 roads, List of B1 roads, etc. The notability argument is not compelling, as the WP:LISTN section of WP:NOTABLE states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists"; and "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". - Evad37 [talk] 00:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of C1 roads then. Didn't know about SIA until this, so thanks Floydian and Evad also. Above struck. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Makaniki[edit]

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

Seems to fall under WP:BLPCRIME - he's been acquitted on appeal. World Defense Review article seems grounded in the conviction. National Mirror mention is 4 sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current leader of Yan Tatsine is likely to have been noted in many Nigerian sources. The riots in Kano in 1980 were very important (I was there!) and the movement continuing after the death of the leader at that time will mean that the current leader will be noticed, This is not just about a crime. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup There seems to be enough coverage of the subject over a sustained period of time to establish notability; I think the article just needs to be worked on to better display such notability. A lot of details are left out, including the reasons for rioting and the subject's acquittal. Returning to the sources and then adding those details should improve the article enough to establish notability more clearly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and big cleanup Agreed with MezzoMezzo. I would just add that unsourced material should be removed. In it's current form the article implies (without source or even direct accusation) that this person committed all these crimes. E.g. the beginning of the last paragraph, 'after the deaths of several hundred...' (paraphrased). Beakermeep^(talk) 13:42, 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.

Note. The text which was the subject of this discussion has been restored and is currently at structured search. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Search[edit]

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

Patents alone do not confer notability, and that's all we're going to have here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. I can't find anything about this patent other than notices of the patent itself. LaMona (talk) 19:21, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:05, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure). 180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I-3 road (Bulgaria)[edit]

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

Article is about insignificant road and has no sources. Wikipuser777 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: page does meet criteria for notability Wikipuser777 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable under WP:GEOROAD. This seems to be one of the major national roads in Bulgaria, according to the map. I suggest the nominator read WP:BEFORE before nominating anything for lack of sources. Kraxler (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All major roads are notable, per WP:GEOROAD. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 10:46, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of United Methodists in Music and Worship Arts[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Google search indicates it's a pretty large organization, but didn't give me the kind of hits I could use to establish notability or expand the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep as an organisation providing servicesn and training to local churches it might be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made 6 identical keep as above !votes in 4 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. No significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails ORG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is no less significant or notable than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian_Association_of_Musicians; and there is no ongoing attempt to delete that page. talk 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jrn0074: Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boleyn: Then be consistent. Start a deletion discussion on the PAM page. jrn0074 (talk) 19:08, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Young[edit]

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

Delete: sad to have to initiate AFD for this inoffensive, quaint individual but I don't think she meets the threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets inclusion requirements in the usual way: through the general notability guideline. I've added a few more sources. Her appearance on Johnny Carson's show was named the funniest moment ever on television. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also added sources, beefed up article. (Have to redo, due to edit conflict, but will do that.) LaMona (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know it. A few more keeps and I can safely withdraw the nom. Quis separabit? 18:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the edit conflict! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just shows the passion for the Potato Chip Lady! LaMona (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC. Quirky and written about as so. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINS: Deleted rationale for AFD; withdrawal of AFD by nominator, myself. Quis separabit? 19:23, 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Mohan[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability. The given reference links are (with the exception of the BBC, which is not a third-party source on its own program) all broken, and those I could recover did not cover Mohan in any detail. I had redirected to Dance India Dance#Season 2: 2010 per WP:BLP1E and would support such a redirect, but was reverted by User:Indiantellyfan. Per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here for a wider discussion. Huon (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - Fails WP:N as well as it lacks reliable references. The article have significant coverage. CutestPenguin (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG with multiple references out there. Is winner of the 2nd season of reality show Dance India Dance and was lead actress of another fictional show Dil Dosti Dance. And btw, the article wasn't this bad before, for example over here in 2012. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:57, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Multiple sources satisfying WP:BASIC. See, e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:26, 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 05:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GTA (group)[edit]

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

Record producers who asserts the most tenuous notability. Fails WP:BAND. scope_creep talk 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails WP:MUSICBIO.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs more, in my view, than what is in the article or what is available to be added to the article. Being included in generic "best of" lists is specifically not helpful when it comes to notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:57, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Felek[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 26 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) 16:35, 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) 12:25, 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 procedural close. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Up (conference)[edit]

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

Can't see how this is notable. I think there is several hundreds of these types of catholic youth organizations in the Americas alone. scope_creep talk 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Sorry. scope_creep talk 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue No argument for deletion, move to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (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 speedy delete as WP:G12, as it was copyvio from this site. It would also qualify as WP:G11, as it was also very promotional in tone- which makes sense, as it was taken from a tourism site. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Places to visit in Ethiopia[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Article also reads like someone's essay. ...William 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions....William 15:18, 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. Deor (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady-K Da Prophetess[edit]

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

Only sources are unreliable blogs, no reliable independent sources. Notability not evident. WWGB (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search for the full stage name and received no hits other than this Wikipedia page. A search for her name brings up some other stage names (Lady K, K-Prodigy) but that didn't bring up anything either. The article is phrased just enough to where it probably can't be speedied, but the lack of notability here is fairly clear. I can't find any coverage of her in reliable sources. There are junk hits, blog hits, unusable sources and some primary sources, but nothing usable in the slightest. I wish her well, but she just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. It's just way, way WP:TOOSOON from what I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedied this as spam/non-notable if it hadn't been nommed here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is probably spam. No credible sources found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Dashti[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 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) 12:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Not played in a WP:FPL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:37, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harinarayanchari Mishra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Coverage amounts to mention in passing in connection to his work as a police officer involved in several notable events. (The events were notable, not his involvement in them.) Awards don't appear to be notable either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage in sources is required to show that a topic meets the general notability guideline, where it fails. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Fails GNG. Sources only mention it and nothing else. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:16, 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. Creation of a redirect to Tarnak Farm incident is at editorial discretion. I don't, offhand, see anything here that cries out to be merged to that article (which seems to be more detailed than this one); but if anyone wants the text of this article userfied, with an eye to merging some of its content, just ask on my talk page. Deor (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Umbach[edit]

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

Subject of article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. He is adequately covered in the article Tarnak Farm incident. Big_iron (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Big_iron (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Big_iron (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tarnak farm incident only desribes him as a major. Also, it would be helpful if you pointed out why the subject article doesn't meet policies. Regards, The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 11:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been substantive coverage of the Tarnak Farms incident; there has not been significant coverage of the person outside of the event. Other than that event, the article only says about the person that he was a major who is a pilot in the Illinois Air National Guard. --Big_iron (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC) See also WP:BLP1E. Big_iron (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, we can always change the article, so edits may cause it to be kept. Salutations, The Lightning Strikes! ^{Try me!} 20:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:SOLDIER, and is notable only for one incident, so WP:ONEEVENT - I don't see why we shouldn't merge it back to the event article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BLP1E as Umbach is only known for his role in the Tarnak Farm incident. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. Only notable for this one incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Content worth keeping from this short article can easily be accommodated in the Tarnak Farm incident article at any time before deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tarnak Farm incident; otherwise, not notable enough standing alone. Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty erotic stories archive[edit]

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

Unnotable web content. All "sources" are the web site itself, no independent coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting deletion: Site is referred to on http://asstr.org (see http://assm.asstr.org/), http://bestofnifty.org/, etc. There are 351 links on the Web to this site, according to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nifty.org The site has from 10,000 to 34000 page views per day, according to http://www.sitesview.net/d/www.nifty.org There are 141 references to the site listed on Google Books (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Nifty+erotic+stories+archive%22&gws_rd=ssl). Google Scholar has 14 references to "nifty.org" (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nifty.org&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10). There are 418 results for "Nifty Erotic Stories Archive" on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nifty+erotic+stories+archive&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10)

The site is also mentioned in Steven F. Kruger, "Gay Internet Medievalism: Erotic Story Archives, the Middle Ages, and Contemporary Gay Identity", American Literary History, Volume 26, No. 3, http://alh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/29/alh.ajq064.extract, according to http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Nifty+erotic+stories+archive%22.

The following quotation is from www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Slash-fiction

1992: The Nifty Erotic Stories Archive, or Nifty for short, is established. The 'Gay Male - Celebrity' sub-section of the archive proves to be a breeding ground for many different types of slash fiction, particularly RPS and boyband fiction. It is one of the largest collections of RPS in existence, with more than 1,500 boyband stories alone, some of which were several megabytes of plain-text in length.

(above unsigned comments by Deisenbe)

Comment: The thing is, many of those links are not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. The peer review journal is a good example of what can be considered a reliable source, and reliable sources are generally considered to be stuff such as newspaper articles, coverage in peer reviewed journal entries, lengthy mentions in books (published through RS publishers) and so on. Also, the problem with the quote from statemaster.com is twofold: first, it is a mirror of Wikipedia. Secondly, it's a reference to material that is no longer on the Wikipedia entry as far as I can see. Even if this was material independently added by statemaster.com, that site is not considered to be a reliable source. I am finding some coverage and I'll see what I can do, but so far the coverage you have listed here would not be considered reliable or would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, page rankings on Alexa does not give notability per WP:ITSPOPULAR. It may make it more likely that a site will gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was almost a weak keep, but this is somewhat extensively mentioned in various academic texts as fairly notable and an early example of its type. If not for the academic sources, I'd probably have voted otherwise, but there's just enough here to where it squeaks by. I'm going to continue to try finding sources, as I still have a few word combinations that I'd like to try out- there does seem to be more coverage out there (as some sources quote other sources that mention the site), but considering that the site is very often referred to as just "Nifty", this makes searching for reliable sources understandably difficult. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note User:Deisenbe, if you've written about the site and had it published in a reliable source (academic text, PR journal, news website, that sort of thing), we could use that as a reliable source as well. Not that I'm telling you to go out and publish an article about the website and submit it to a website we consider reliable, such as say... Queerty, but if you do happen to have anything like that we could use it. If your userpage is accurate (I have to put that disclaimer since we've had people claim various things in the past), then you're in a unique position where something you've written would be very, very likely to be usable depending on where it was published and if you're also somewhat more likely to have something published if you were to write up an article and submit it to one of the various locations that we would consider usable. (Although if you did do that, I'd recommend that you not mention that you wrote it just to save the Wikipedia article, FYI.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not published anything that refers to this site.deisenbe (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A shame then- the site's background is actually sort of interesting, as sites like this rarely get non-profit status. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly notable, Keep — HipLibrarianship ^talk 00:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, as shown above. BMIComp

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, but there is the language barrier to contend with. Has been tagged for notability for over six years; time for it to be discussed. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[off-topic comments refactored to talk page WT:Articles for deletion/Hindi Pa Tapos Ang Labada Darling Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I can't dig up anything that can be used as reference for this movie and satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only link that I found is this article and even then the mention is only in passing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a Tagalog reading Filipino Wikipedian can come up with sources for this 1994 non-English film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like one of those softcore films. IS IT? Not that that by itself has any bearing on notability, but if it is, it'll be very hard to get sources. –H T D 19:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lenticel. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILMS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 05:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Himelblau[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG, despite being tagged for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTABLE.--Smerus (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I noticed that DGG has added some reviews to the article and came across this AfD as a result. The recently added reviews appear to constitute at least four full-length reviews of the the subject's works in academic sources, as a result, WP:AUTHOR 3 is met. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepIt technically meets the requirements for NAUTHOR. More impressionistically, it seems to me that he is not really an expert in any one thing in particular--his works seems to each be on a separate subject entirely, and I would be reluctant to claim notability by WP:PROF. This is right at the boundary where any decision makes sense. Since he may yet become more notable, and the article is not in anyway harmful, I see no real reason to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 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) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy-like and gradual correspondence theory[edit]

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

Non-notable episstemological theory. Not a single Google Books or Google Scholar hit, no reliable independent sources. Huon (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:RS. The article is non-salvageable. There is virtually no real secondary literature on this specific topic. The article merely uses various sources to advance a novel position. See also this thread. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent sources; unlikely that any can be found. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOV (x86 instruction)[edit]

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

Referenced only to official Intel documents, but this is not the main problem. Almost all processors have a "move", "load" or "store" instruction, and this particular one does not appear to be any more remarkable (aside from the fact that x86 is the most popular architecture today). Wikipedia is not an x86 reference manual. — Keφr 09:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I could see an argument for some of the more, well, notable assembly language instructions having their own articles, but this isn't one of them. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fully agree with Lesser Cartographies and the nominator. This is more computing cruft left over from a time when Wikipedia essentially had no inclusion criteria. Groups of instructions, such as MMX or SSE, are certainly notable, and NOP is a notable concept in computer science. This is just an unremarkable implementation of a common instruction. It would be more at home in an x86 programming wiki at Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the addressing modes, there really isn't much to say about the MOV instruction at the level of an encyclopedia article. I believe that MOV and related addressing modes are already adequately covered in X86_assembly language#Data manipulation instructions. A search turns up no interesting history, aside from the assembly language variants, again covered in the aforementioned article. A lack of reliable sources about this particular x86 instruction, suggests deletion. I would be fine with a redirect as well, although it may be an unlikely search term. --Mark viking (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talent TPC-310[edit]

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

No references are in the article and none appear to exist. The article has not been edited substantially since 2007. — Keφr 09:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Similar issues with Talent DPC-200. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any case for redirecting this to List of MSX compatible computers, in which it is presently included? There is nothing in GBooks, but I did find this from old-computers.com (as to which see these results). James500 (talk) 05:45, 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 redirect to List of MSX compatible computers. Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talent DPC-200[edit]

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

No references are in the article and none appear to exist. The article has basically no content and has not been edited substantially since 2007. — Keφr 09:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this appears to be one of several brands used for the same whitebox computer that was marketed outside the US. I'm not finding anything in the way of reviews. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Could this be redirected to List of MSX compatible computers, in which it is presently included? The following sources suggest it is correctly included in that list: [24] [25] [26]. James500 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per James500 makes the most sense to me. Upjav (talk) 03:15, 3 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEC µPD7720[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009. Article presents no evidence of notability. GBooks search gives 2 hits, bare passing mentions. — Keφr 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Children, this was one of the first DSPs on the market, and the article says as much. "The most popular first generation DSP chips, the NEC µPD7720 and Texas Instruments TMS32010 became commercially available in late 1982." [27] 173.172.188.215 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This processor is mentioned in every DSP textbook I've looked at, but finding references that were more than passing mentions was a little challenging. Here's what I've come up with:

Chance, R. J. (1990). "Devices Overview". In Jones, N. B.; Watson, J. D. McK. (eds.). Digital Signal Processing: Principles, Devices and Applications. Peter Peregrinus Ltd. pp. 10–12. ISBN 0863412106.
Sweitzer, S. (March 1984). "A low cost FFT chip set". IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 9: 371–373. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.1984.1172726.(subscription required)
Simpson, Robert J.; Terrell, Trevor J. (September 1984). "Digital filtering using the NEC µPD7720 signal processor". Microprocessing and Microprogramming. 14 (2): 67–78. doi:10.1016/0165-6074(84)90101-7.(subscription required)

I think that's sufficient to demonstrate notability. If anyone would like a look at the pdfs, let me know and I'll send you a copy. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bunch of passing mentions on the article talk page. Might help a bit with the background. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article now reorganized+rewritten to include 3 solid cites and 5 informative ones. It's needs work, but I think the current state is sufficient to survive AfD. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inherently notable by reason of being "the most popular first generation DSP chips". James500 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as inherent notability. Nontrivial coverage either exists or it does not. If it does, the topic is notable. If not, it is not. Simple. — Keφr 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. If you read N carefully, you will find that, contrary to the popular misconception, GNG doesn't work in reverse. James500 (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you read it carefully, you will find that contrary to a popular misconception, this is not a misconception at all. WP:V requires that information in articles be sourced using reliable references, and that information that fails to be so sourced is liable to be deleted. And no one will argue for keeping less than five sentences in an article, right? — Keφr 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V has never required signficant coverage. James500 (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inherent notability might be worth reviewing (both of you). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but it is only an essay. James500 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this more carefully, and I am of the view the book by Chance is enough to satisfy GNG. I can't read the other two because I don't have a subscription. James500 (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lesser Cartographies source finds, article cleanup, and further development. Nice work. --Mark viking (talk) 19:40, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Char Dham (Vedic)[edit]

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

WP:OR (possibly WP:HOAX). No RS that says that Char Dham exists in Vedic scriptures. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Redtigerxyz ^Talk It is very sad to note that you have termed this topic as original research and a hoax because you have not found a reliable source that indicates Char Dham exists in Vedic literature. It seems you have not appreciated the contents of section – "Pratardana’s description of the four Dhams". Two significant Mantras from the Rig Veda i.e. IX.96.18 and IX.96.19 referred to by two authors, have been cited in this section and explained by those authors. You may not know Sanskrit and Hindi but permit me to lead you to Rig Veda Vol. 5 pages 335,336 published online by Aryasamaj Jamnagar which is actually Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s translation of the Rig Veda and his commentary on that text. Dham means plane of existence. To assist you please notice the words – तृतीयं धाम at the start of the second line of mantra IX.96.18 on page 335 which is explained by Dayananda Saraswati on page 336 as – (तृतीयं, धाम) (pronounced - triteeyam dhaam; triteeyam means 'three') (three dhams) are देवयान ("Devayana or Devaloka") और ("and") पितृयान ("Pitriyana") इन दोनों से पृथक् ("beyond these two") तीसरा ("third") जो ("which") मुक्तिधाम ("Muktidham") है ("is"). In the mantra IX.96.19 second line page 336 you will find two words – तुरीयं धाम (pronounced - tureeyam dhaam; tureeyam or Turiya means "the fourth"). Dayanada Saraswati explains (तुरीयम्) चौथा ("fourth") (धाम) ("dham") परमपद ("the highest state") परमात्मा (Paramatman) है ("is"). The link to this text is http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/rugveda_v5/rugveda.htm . Aditya soni (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya soni, you are quoting a verse (WP:PRIMARY). Yes, in the Rig Veda, as per the translation, in two verses in the Veda; some places are called dhams; but is "Char Dham" a separate philosophical concept? No. It is OR to interpret this translation as a philosophical standalone concept on its own merit. No RS author (I could trace) has categorized it as so, no one even uses the "Char Dham" term in this context. I am commenting after reading Dayananda Saraswati's commentary in Hindi. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr.Redtigerxyz, the expression "Char Dham" does not appear in the Vedas as such; agreed, but then, the Vedas do speak about the subject four places or states of existence as dhams and enumerate them as three plus the fourth and thus add up to four, therefore, I have said four dhams; there is no original research conducted by me. In case you agree, this article can be re-titled as – "Four Vedic dhams" and retained suitably amended, but not if you have otherwise some objection to its contents itself. The option rests with you. I appreciate your concern.Aditya soni (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem not even Dayananda classifies them as an independent concept in his commentary; he just translates the verse. Without explicit religious/academic commentary saying these four "dham"s are a philosophical concept; the article is WP:OR. Significance is pure WP:SYTH. "Those opting for the Deva-dham and the Pitri-dham do not attain Moksha" is not supported by the ref. Ref 8 just covers turiya, but not in the context of the alleged four dhams of the Rig Veda. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes User:Redtigerxyz, Dayanand Saraswati is being misinterpreted here. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this is Dayananda Saraswati's personal interpretation, which has not been discussed widely in academic/scholarly sources to be notable enough. The references in the article do not directly support this concept - they are about the individual concepts that the author is trying to combine and present as "Char Dham". utcursch | talk 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Utcursch, Dayanand Saraswati never said that anywhere. He talked about 4 eras, castes, etc but not Dham or Yatra. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost no recognition. We have Char Dham. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a personal interpretation of religious texts, as is exemplified with the extremenly confusing nature of its statements and the language used. Absolutely incomprehensible to any lay person and as such falls under WP:NOT. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:22, 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 delete in accordance with the consensus here that a stand-alone article is not justified. The merger suggestions are noted, and if anyone thinks that any sourced content here could be used to improve 1982 FIFA World Cup, I will restore this as a redirect so that the material is available for merger and attribution can be preserved. Deor (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1982 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

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

Could possibly be merged to 1982 FIFA World Cup, but I doubt that any of the "controversies" mentioned here are notable enough for their own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Battiston could have been killed - many people see this as the defining moment of Toni Schumacher's career. The so-called "non-agression pact" was a major influence in the future of the game. Asoccer maniac (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 1982 FIFA World Cup. A lot of the text is copied from there anyway. Or rename article to List of controversies at the 1982 World Cup and link each controversial game from there, the Kuwait game deserves an article on its own. bbx (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as fundamentally WP:OR. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1982 FIFA World Cup if not already covered there. These were clearly extremely notable aspects of the tournament which are still talked about 30+ years later, but I don't think a separate article is justified. It only seems to exist because at some point in the past someone decided that every World Cup should have a breakout "controversies" article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChrisTheDude. Needs references for all of the first section. Text feels rushed and breathless in general ("Many were", "Cause of much commotion"). - Richfife (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ChrisTheDude. Not WP:NOTABLE indpendent of tournament. Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - In no way deserves an article of its own.--Canyouhearmenow 12:09, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Minor[edit]

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

Minor is the mayor of a place with under 7,000 people. This makes him way below the notability threshold for politicians. Nothing else about him is important enough to merit having an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lives up to his surname, a mayor of a minor community isn't exactly notable. A redirect is possible if his town has a list of mayors, but as it's small, it probably won't matter anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of the references are from media outside New Jersey. This old revision included coverage of a lawsuit against the mayor alleging sexual harassment. Somnetimes a mayor of a small community can pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The township that he was the mayor of is located right on the border of New Jersey with Pennsylvania, immediately across the Delaware River from a suburb of Philadelphia — and both of the "outside of New Jersey" references are to Philadelphia media. So they don't really get him past GNG just because they're "out of state" — because Philadelphia is the township's local media source. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local politician in a small town who doesn't pass WP:NPOL on that basis, without enough substantive or non-local coverage (as I explain above, Philly is the local media) to get him past WP:GNG in its place. And for WP:BLP reasons, we should rightly avoid talking about sexual harassment allegations where "the outcome of the case is unknown", which is what Eastmain's diff says about it — so while I suppose he might get a notability boost out of it if he had actually been convicted of anything, as things actually stand it can't make him more noteworthy than any other mayor of a town this size. Which leaves us with only routine local coverage, insufficient for GNG, of a smalltown mayor who doesn't get an automatic NPOL pass — and that means delete. Bearcat (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 delete. Deor (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susybelle Lyons[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable socialite; none of the claims to fame meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Only non-trivial sources are obituaries and a blurb on a Louisiana Historical site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable socialite with several notable relatives. However, notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article posted in 2007 was vandalized in the preceding year on three occasions, with parts of it being deleted. There was only a shell of an article there when it was recommended that this article be removed. The current article has been fully reconfigured with explanation of notability and more than twenty sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the current article version (Aug 28 2014) is the best of the historical versions, then there are still problems -- the supposed "references" don't meet the WP:RS criteria -- Wordpress, links to other Wikipedia pages, etc -- I clicked on 2/3 of the supposed references before rolling my eyes. Plus I searched independently about 6 SERP pages and didn't find anything much. Basic question: what is this person notable for? Participation in the YMCA? I am willing to switch if more sources can be found but at this point, I can see no valid reason for inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not make a credible claim of encyclopedic significance, and is sourced primarily to unreliable (e.g. Wordpress blogs) and primary sources (e.g. involvement in the Shreveport Opera sourced to the Shreveport Opera's own website), with very little substantive coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate any reason why she would belong in an encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Cullen328, sorry. RWCasinoKid (talk) 21:10, 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. The page should be redirected to an article on the company if such an article is created in the future SpinningSpark 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Thomas Williams[edit]

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

I do not consider a position as CEO of a small network of urgent care centers notable, and the importance of the other things mentioned is not clear either. I see no source for "Williams developed Medivac procedures used in the annual U.S. military exercise Cobra Gold". Medivac was developed long before his work, and what I think this means is that he was responsible for organizing the established procedures it for this exercise.

The references are mostly local uncritical PR for his clinics . Given the emphasis on interesting but non-encyclopedic parts of his bio, this should be in who's who, not an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything reliable on him. The first two sources should be in HighBeam, but they are not. To me, a lot of what is stated in this article feels made up. I am One of Many (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Also, reference #1, used to back up many claims, is a newspaper article supposedly published in December, 2014. According to my calendar, that is four months in the future. A bit fishy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:I am One of Many @user:Cullen328 I have corrected the date for citation 1 and made the first two sources available in DropBox. Albeit they are local sources, both are reliable sources that cover the article-subject in significant depth. They can be viewed in dropbox here and here. Citation 4 is also worth looking at. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG coupled with false claims. Wikicology (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a serious claim. Do you have anything backing it up? CorporateM has already included two links to the offline sources, and would probably be able to provide the rest if necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Both of the articles linked by CorporateM are fairly in-depth profiles of the man, and if they were national publications I doubt anybody would be !voting delete. WP:N does not specify sources having to be at the national level, or state level, after all, and thus these profiles both count towards notability. That being said, the coverage I've looked at appears to be predominantly on the company itself, and thus I was wondering if having an article on that and then redirecting William's article would work better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am with Crisco 1492 on this one. The articles mentioned seem to focus more on the company and therefore I feel that a redirect to a company would be highly in order here. However, if the article has not been written regarding the company, then this article should be deleted until such time as one can be created.--Canyouhearmenow 11:56, 6 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) 07:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Quam[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NBASEBALL. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual amateur baseball player in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college baseball player who also played post-college semi-pro or amateur baseball (unclear). Subject is not entitled to presumption of notability per WP:NCOLLATH (no major college awards), nor WP:NBASEBALL (never played a game in the Major Leagues). Coverage does not appear sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Existing sources in the article are either trivial mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage, or from non-independent sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Notability isn't gained from having notable teammates.Mdtemp (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 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 Tarnak Farm incident. I don't really see anything worth merging over to the incident article. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 23:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lloyd Smith[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. He can be adequately covered in the article covering the friendly fire incident in which he was killed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Safiel (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet our standard for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. The individual soldiers do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but the incident is notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. Agree with Tchaliburton. --Big_iron (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. EricSerge (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our content and referencing standards, and our understanding of how best to package and publish content about topics like this, are very different in 2014 than they were in 2005 (the time of the original creation and the original AFD discussion). Under contemporary standards we do not need separate biographical articles about each individual soldier who was killed in the incident, particularly when they're this minimally sourced — all he really needs at this point is a redirect to the main article on the incident itself. Two of the three others, for that matter, are already just redirects rather than standalone bios — and the remaining one, Ainsworth Dyer, should be redirected as well. Redirect to Tarnak Farm incident. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 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 redirect to List of Dark Shadows characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Loomis[edit]

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Shadows] - No independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dark Shadows characters I think would be a better option if that is the way to go. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 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 List of Dark Shadows characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Evans[edit]

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Shadows - No independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dark Shadows characters I think would be a better option if that is the way to go. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Bach[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - Cwobeel (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person may well meet WP:GNG because it's easy to find mentions of him in mainstream Croatian press that describe him as a notable person and sometimes interview him, e.g. "Nenad Bach" in Jutarnji list or "Nenad Bach" in Večernji list. As much as I personally dislike the notion of having "celebrities" in Wikipedia, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Radulović, it seems to be a global consensus to keep these. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG - While he may not necessarily meet the notability guideline for music, he has received considerable coverage as a peace activist. [28] , [29] , [30] , Boston Globe, Billboard , Miami Herald, LA times , [31] , [32]. I'll attempt a rewrite and include these sources accordingly. NQ talk 10:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. For those considering a rewrite, here is an article from the Daily News too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NQ. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:06, 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) buff bills 7701 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Gustav Guckelberger[edit]

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

Article does not even assert WP:NOTABILITY, just states that he was a chemist who was the student of notable chemists. No German-language article to get sources from / indication of WP:NOTABILITY. I could not establish his notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is mentioned in several biographies as a student of Liebig and as a industrial chemist.--Stone (talk) 21:11, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 16:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions in various biographies do not confer notability. Studying under notable chemists does not confer notability. A routine, relatively brief career as an industrial chemist does not confer notability. The article contains no plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the sourcing with three new book sources, added some actual claims of notability (he is said to have made improvements in soda manufacture), and removed the not-very-good sources previously listed that were more about his advisor's group than about him. The remaining one of the existing sources looked like an unpublished web page but turns out to be a five-page published biography of him in German that could presumably be used to expand the article further; I've cited it properly so the whole thing can be read by someone who (unlike me) knows German. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to David Eppstein for his professional and exemplary work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG after some good work by David Eppstein.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to David Eppstein. The part of the German source that deals with Guckelberger is just one page and a quarter, rather than five pages; but it speaks to Carl Gustav Guckelberger's contribution and also quotes from a biography of Justus von Liebig (available here), so there is recognition of the subject individually.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 16:26, 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.