Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 August	27 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted (CSD A7) by Bbb23. (non-admins closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J lowe (rapper)[edit]

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

Has had a deletion tag go up a few times but the person keeps on removing it. I say this should be deleted as there are no refs, could be an important person as the producing of a song is pretty big, but this seems iffy. Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything out there that would show notability. I do see some primary sources and merchant sources coming up, but I can't find any actual coverage for this performer to show that he'd pass notability guidelines. I see where the song exists and all, but I can't find where it gained him any coverage in the slightest. For that matter, I can't find where it was used anywhere at all. There's absolutely no coverage out there for J Lowe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know this almost does sound like a hoax in a way. It was listed as a speedy and a prod but the user kept on deleting those. Wgolf (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this person does indeed exist, this article is a promotional piece, and he obviously fails general notability and WP:MUSIC. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search of the subject doesn't yield anything positive in terms of reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:33, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry P. Thomas[edit]

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

Not seeing evidence that the subject of this BLP meets GNG or WP:PROF nor do I believe being the Inaugural Director of the Frederick Douglass Distinguished Scholars Program at American University is in itself notable. J04n(talk page) 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—University staff positions are even more difficult notability-wise than faculty positions: you're usually not going to end up in the newspaper unless something has gone horribly wrong. Nothing appears to have gone wrong here, and so I'm only seeing routine announcements. That's not enough to justify notability until you get to the provost level and above. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible assertion of notability – routine searching turned up no sources. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 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 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Travelers: Heir of the Unknown[edit]

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

I have found no indication of coverage in reliable, independent sources for this book. A Google search turned up no usable sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article has no sources, no publication data, and was written by the book's author. --Seduisant (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not only non-notable, but it's also very, very closely paraphrased from the official book jacket. It could probably be speedied as copyvio, but at least this way we'll be able to G4 it if it gets re-added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable author, lacks appropriate coverage, does poorly on the search engine test (WP:SET), and the best metric I can find for number of copies sold is its ranking on Amazon's bestsellers list, where it currently stands at 1.1 millionth. Upjav (talk) 18:58, 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. Since Afds are not a vote, I'm closing this in favor of the side that has made the most solid arguments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sindikatu[edit]

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

I'm no expert in organised crime, but while there's some substance to it i.e. historical figures like Asiong Salonga, this apparently reeks of an elaborate hoax, not to mention that similar articles have been deleted before for the same reasons. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it has a lot of references to drug-busts, I find it hard to believe someone would go to that much effort just for a hoax (I hope otherwise they're wasting so much valuable Wiki-editing time!). Maybe dispute the fact or neutrality instead? Abcmaxx (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, but to me it seems to be pretty much filled with hot air. The tiger symbol in the infobox is actually from a certain Japanese shrine; even if I don't really know much about organised crime in the Philippines I don't exactly recall it being used at all, or featured in mainstream news reports. Another thing is "sindikato" or "sindikatu" refers to crime syndicates in general, not some association of criminal gangs, let alone a monolothic mega-group of thugs. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another thing: - Now that I found this page again, it's pretty much safe to say that this one's another handywork of Malusia22, so I'm calling for a G5 speedy. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - harsh: deleting an article because the author is a 'suspected' sock puppet is quite harsh dont you thinkChveawful (talk)
      - And just about how harsh is it anyway? It's more or less obvious as what the SPI case page shows, that similar articles have been recreated before under different names, only to be deleted as they were made under sock accounts and that they're elaborate hoaxes. I don't want to jump into conclusions, but it seems to lead to the same path as before. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - hmm: deleting it wont solve the problem either he will return using another name,we should deal with the sock not the article as long it has some merit to it,we should not throw away the whole bucket because of one rotten apple which is a waste for both the so called suspected sock puppet and usChveawful (talk)
      - Nope If there was something worth saving in the article, then I'd have no problem tearing out what Malusia22 and his socks had added, but from the beginning to end, it is him.Naraht (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it may dont you think your getting personal on this, the article is not a total hoax and it can be refined ,deleting it would be tantamount to a cover up,your seeming crusading nature about this article seems a mystery, i get you, its not a monolithic organization but it does state that it is a scattered group of crime factions and gangs before you delete it, admit that the word sindikato is a familiar term referring to the Philippine underworld, to call it a hoax is unbelievable im a new user and im not really familiar of the rules you guys set,im also starting an article on this very subject,im a political science student from University of San carlos,and i know that like the yakuza the sindikato is a term used to refered to various filipino crime syndicates im willing to start a new article about this very subject to get the fact straight im not willing to let ignorance perpetuate pertaining to this criminal organizations wreaking havoc on my country(selling drugs and vices on the streets of my beloved nation) if this article does get deleted i will start a new one but this ill state the true facts and unbiased truthChveawful (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. The word "sindikato" is indeed commonly used to describe violent criminal gangs in the Philippines. However, never has it been referred to as a proper noun, and definitely not in the manner it is spelled on the page, with a final u. The article is arranged and written so that it seems legitimate, with sources and images. However, the sources are either unreliable or just talk about a particular "sindikato", and the images are not of the actual subject. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 04:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed. I doubt that there's such a loose confederation ala-National Crime Syndicate. Furthermore, as I said earlier, has there ever been a time when one of those groups associated with this so-called "sindikato", or news sources for that matter, used a tiger symbol to signify them? Also, while it may construe as WP:OR, I asked my old man's opinion and yes, he did confirm that the sindikato is just that: a mere transliteration of the word syndicate. Members of different gangs may know each other, i.e. in prison but besides that, they're either very loosely affiliated, or perhaps having a fierce rivalry. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems legit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.99.44 (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely legit. seems to cover WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you fell for his trap real good, dude. None of the sources connect the dots between the groups who (supposedly) comprise the sindikato, sindikatu or whatever name he's using. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not censor information. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but Wikipedia does not allow hoaxes either. That being said I DO need some input from those who know something about the gangs. I'm not pushing this to be deleted merely because I don't like the article, which is why I put it on AFD rather than brashly call a speedy. The article's seemingly legit nature accounts for why it has evaded detection, but do a little research on Philippine gang culture and you'll see why some of us aren't pleased. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres no evidence either that ever been put to discredit it thoroughly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.92.106 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely a work of User:Malusia22. I live in the Philippines so I can attest that this is a hoax, regardless of the sources added all over the article. The "Sindikatu groups" the author indicated here are actually informal names for certain groups and they are NOT related or collaborating in a certain way to each other. This article looks like a page that came from Unencyclopedia -WayKurat (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add, it looks like the two anons that voted "keep" were socks of Malusia22. (User:49.151.92.106 and User:49.151.99.44) -WayKurat (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely legitimate like yakuza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipsaild (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Another sockpuppet. -WayKurat (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have reviewed this AFD nomination and I found four sockpuppets of Malusia22 voting for "keep". Two sock accounts (User:Chveawful and User:Slipsaild) and two IP addresses. -WayKurat (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
huh me are you serious lol,im new so lay off — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipsaild (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. If you are new, why is it that your first and only edit is a "keep" vote here? A normal "new" user won't do that and instead edit other articles; not an AFD page. -WayKurat (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep way to go waykurat — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTI-WAY KURAT (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- keep on accusing way kurat you'll definitely go places lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTI-WAY KURAT (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, now you are really resorting to this? And you even have the guts to threaten me? It's now obvious that you are Malusia22. You created new accounts (and impersonated me) just to keep this hoax article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a legitimate account on Philippine crime groups about time the Sindikato is introduced to the world yes definitely the Filipino mafia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.143.37 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt None of the references deal with the core of the article, at best are description of the group mentioned without reference to sindikatu.Naraht (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sindikato exist yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thugmergenash2 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Thugmergenash2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note, as of 18:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC) , there is one keep that isn't a Malusia22 sock:BabbaQ Also, I did a google news search for sindikatu, all of the stories that came up were in serbian or croatian at least according to google and clearly had letters *not* used in any of the Philippine languages.Naraht (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems legit with all the references cannot be a hoax with all the citations backing it up as deletion goes a hard sell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.84.162 (talk • contribs) — 112.210.84.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete I have yet to find a source on the page that mentions the word "Sindikatu" even once. The is the most sockpuppetry I've seen in quite awhile on one page. Only one of the keep !votes is from a non-sockpuppet (User:BabbaQ), who doesn't appear to have read the sources cited. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: strike the sockpuppet votes. Ansh666 22:54, 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) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Stolyarov II[edit]

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

Flagged this article for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. This is a clear case of self-promotion as the page was created by a username that is an anagram of Mr. Stolyarov's full name.

As noted below, IP 216.59.118.42 nominated this page for deletion. BITS created this page and responded; I've completed the original nomination request. Ansh666 22:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user 216.59.118.42 nominated this article for deletion on 20:36, 26 August 2014, for the following reason:

"Flagged this article for deletion because it fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. This is a clear case of self-promotion as the page was created by a username that is an anagram of Mr. Stolyarov's full name."

Keep There is no evidence that user AynRandsGloveToy, the original creator, is Gennady Stolyarov, despite the anagram. It could just as easily be an enthusiastic fan. I suspect that IP 75.141.241.151, that edited the article later (to remove some positive editorializing), is actually Gennady Stolyarov, as the IP tracks to the Reno/Carson area, where Mr. Stolyarov lives.

Additionally, even if Mr. Stolyarov had created his own page (which I don't believe is the case), doing so is not grounds for deletion, as long as the subject is genuinely notable and the content remains unbiased.^[1] :I believe that Mr. Stolyarov is indeed a minor but notable figure in the transhumanist movement, especially with regard to the controversy of his children's book. He has been interviewed and featured on the BBC,^[2] Slate,^[3], Psychology Today,^[4] Vice.com,^[5], Mashable,^[6], and The Future and You,^[7] among others. Agree or disagree with Mr. Stolyarov's philosophy and mission, but he is nearly as well-known an author in the transhumanist movement as Zoltan Istvan. Additionally, several other contributors have worked on the page since its initial creation - while one of them (75.141.241.151) may have been Mr. Stolyarov, the others definitely aren't.

I suggest that the nomination for deletion be removed.

Bird in the sun (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself
^ http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140421-how-to-live-forever
^ http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/03/death_is_wrong_the_transhumanist_kids_book_by_gennady_stolyarov.html
^ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-transhumanist-philosopher/201312/childrens-book-ponders-death
^ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-transhumanist-wants-to-teach-kids-that-death-is-wrong
^ http://mashable.com/2014/03/16/death-is-wrong-book/
^ http://thefutureandyou.libsyn.com/the-future-and-you-april-9-2014

Keep. I am indeed not Gennady Stolyarov II, and I have never met him, though I understand why someone would think I am – it seems that he is no stranger to self-promotion. Rather, I simply wanted to create a page for him and be anonymous without giving my IP address, so I created an anagram based on his name (and his interest in Ayn Rand because I wanted to be clever). I similarly created the user SamHiggle, whose name is an anagram of Gilgamesh, so that I could edit the Gilgamesh page.

Thank you, Bird in the sun, for making a good case to keep the article. You clearly list Stolyarov's "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", which are the requirements to presume him to be notable.

AynRandsGloveToy (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AynRandsGloveToy and SamHiggle: just a note, please read WP:SOCK - users are under normal circumstances limited to one account. You haven't done anything wrong so far, but to avoid inadvertently getting in trouble, I'd pick one account and stick with it. Ansh666 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thousands have read his book, and millions have read his articles. Mr. Stolyarov is a stunningly prolific author of immensely high quality, as anyone even remotely familiar with him can attest. This is a prominent and notable thinker and creator. He's widely known in economic, libertarian, Objectivist, and transhumanist circles -- to say the least. The general public needs the basic, background information which only an encyclopedia entry can provide. Do NOT delete this valuable article about this relatively-famous and important person! KyZan (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Keep. I think notability is supported by the references given. --Ben Best 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbest (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix my signature as a result of a complaint. --Ben Best:Talk 15:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gennady is a supporter of LongeCity (where I hold the Assistant Membership Secretary position) and is a very important member of our community. Not only is he known by many of our 25k+ registered users (and many more who haven't signed up) for his volunteer and advocacy work there, but he is also known thoughout many other related organizations. He is a valued volunteer contributor to an industry with the potential to become the next big investment wave and social movement. What you're seeing IMHO is a "star" on the rise. Please keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.99.129 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — 98.211.99.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- reply - please read WP:NEXTBIGTHING before making such arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't disagree with the arguments for Keep above. Seems okay/good to keep. And I object in principle to an AFD started by someone on behalf of a nonregistered user. There is no accountability. In other noms like this the nonregistered user never comments further or responds to questions or acknowledges that they should withdraw a bad nomination. There is no feedback, no accumulating record of the nominator's performance like can be measured for registered editors by the wp:AFDSTATS tool. I need to open an RFC or something towards changing the general practice. --do ncr am 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I reformatted several entries above to indicate "Keep" vote, where that was clearly intended, and also to indent. Please fix if i made any mistake, but i think i did this properly. --do ncr am 02:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: About I object in principle to an AFD started by someone on behalf of a nonregistered user, there is no way around this, because unregistered users cannot create pages, which is necessary to start an AfD discussion (see WP:AFDHOWTO), and I believe it is policy of some sort (not necessarily WP:POLICY) that we should not force people to create accounts if they do not wish to. We do our best to notify the unregistered user that a nomination has been made, either on WT:AfD if they requested there (as was in this case) or on their talk page if they did elsewhere. Ansh666 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an element of WP:AGF that comes into play as well, with these sorts of debates. Unless the nomination from the IP is flawed in some serious way ("I nominate this article for deletion because the author is a dick.", for example), then most of the time an editor will assume good faith and complete the process on their behalf. It's just a technical thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments for KEEP above are passable. I have a problem with nom.s done by proxy for anonymous users, and am surpirsed this isn't already against Wikipedia policy. There needs to be accountability, etc. as described above. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jersey92: and I responded above. This is a technical issue, nothing to do with policy. Ansh666 03:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Ansh666, you did comment above. And I and Jersey92 agree that it is surprising that noms being done by proxy for anonymous users is not already against policy. There needs to be accountability, in the view of some. Of course is it a policy issue. --do ncr am 01:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a policy to ban proxy AfDs would effectively ban IPs from creating AfDs, for a technical reason. That is against the spirit of "anyone can edit", as well as WP:AGF. Besides, many registered users don't check in on AfDs they start, either. When did participating further in a discussion you start become mandatory? Ansh666 02:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, banning IPs from creating AfDs, is what I personally feel would be a good policy change. Yes, that somewhat conflicts against the principle that "anyone can edit", which is a good general principle. Many principles somewhat conflict with other principles. I believe that creating AfDs is a very often a very negative thing, that should not be allowed without some accountability. There is precedent for disallowing non-registered users to initiate negative things: specifically I believe that I.P. editors are not allowed to open arbitrations (and I think maybe that the policy is that I.P. comments in arbitrations are disallowed, and are immediately deleted if they occur). And, if a registered user doesn't respond within an AFD, other AFD editors often contact them and give them feedback or ask them questions ("hey, just wanted to let you know that the AFD on Z that you opened led to great improvement in the Z article" or "hey, just to let you know, the AFD seemed to be taken very badly by the article author, who was offended (with good reason) that their explanation and sources given on the Talk page had been completely ignored in the AFD nom, so maybe you want to check the Talk page next time"). Note, in my view, banning I.P.s from opening AFDs would somewhat support the principle of "anyone can edit" because in practice many new editors are prevented/dissuaded from editing by AFDs opened immediately that kill their ability to get started, that establish Wikipedia is unfair and mean, etc. If there are fewer unjustified / unreasonable AFDs, then more new editors would find that "anyone can edit". It is not mandatory for persons to continue to participate in a discussion that they open, but it perhaps should be mandatory that they be open to receiving feedback, good or bad, about the consequences of what they did. And to be mildly liable for their record: "Person X opened 400 AFDs and every one of them was denied by consensus, per wp:AFDSTATS, so I question their judgment about wp:N somewhat" could be a relevant statement to make in an RFA about person X. An I.P. editor cannot even be contacted, much less held accountable for their record in any way. --do ncr am 15:16, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McElroy[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the last AFD, which was closed as keep without quorum. Subject is not notable because of his association with Ross Perot, nor as a painter. Almost all claims in the article are unverifiable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pretty clear that this article is trying to weave all it's minor "claims to fame" into a convincing argument for notability, and it fails. Also, most of the links turn up an error when you try to follow them, calling their credibility into doubt. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above - fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:29, 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 Speedy delete a7 (nonnotable), g11 (self-promotion), WP:SNOW. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sol adoni. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helixq[edit]

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

Non-notable computer language. No citation here of independent WP:reliable sources, and virtually no pertinent hits in a verbatim Google search. Previously PRODded but article's creator unPRODded it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Drprinceton (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton[reply]

Dr. Adoni is the figure behind HelixQ. His 30Mod Prime theory in 1995 is now known to be th fastest Prime Algorithm due to bench mark tests in PyPrimes. Wiki Needs a page on Dr. Adoni, HelixQ and his 8 Prime Spirals. So far one Russian is trying to keep the info off of Wiki, and he is not qualified to judge such major new prime work. The 30Mod Prime algorithm predates the sieve of Atkin a 60Mod prime theory also discussed by Dr. Adoni years before and his 90Mod work is relevant as well.

Drprinceton (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify any independent reliable sources that will support all the claims you are making for this software or for the theory? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr sol adoni on the WP:FRINGE researcher behind this, and 8 prime spirals for another piece of delete-worthy cruft from the same source. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 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 Speedy delete, WP:SPAM and WP:SNOW. Author's argument is "the world is conspiring against me to keep me and my theory from becoming known". That won't work here. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr sol adoni[edit]

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

Because the article makes him sound significant, I'm not speedying this, but I can't find evidence of notability for this living person. Few Google hits, no Google Scholar hits, and the word "ennisa" itself returns only 208 hits in a Google search, with none that I can see in a quick scan giving the impression of being an organization that publishes papers on mathematical topics. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is trying to supress information about Dr Adoni and his 8 Prime Spirals released in 1995. Since then his 30Mod prime work was used by Sieve of Atkin 60mod work. Dr. Adoni is well known since he has authored many books and there are many news articles on him. The person trying to delete this page which is needed due to the 8 prime spiral of Dr. Adoni and his HelixQ work as well, is a lone Russian editor trying to keep the world ignorant of the major prime discoveries of Dr. Adoni. PyPrimes was used to verify how significant the 8 prime spirals are, since they out performed all prime algorithms tested included wheel factorization and seive of Eratosthenes. So the page is needed as a reference to the work of Dr. Adoni, that being his 1995 paper the Ennisa Formula in which 30mod, 60mod and 90mod prime algorithms were discussed. Since that work 60mod prime algorithm work of Atkin has been accepted as a major advance in primality, even though it was really discovered almost 10 years earlier. There are many usenet debates from the 1990's over how important this discovery was. Now 20 years later with PyPrimes and the sieve of Atkin being found to be significant work, the original work of Dr Adoni should be cited properly at Wiki. To ignore his 1995 work that is well documented in Usenet from the 1990's would be a gross violation of acknowledging the real discover of 30mod, 60mod and 90mod prime theory. Drprinceton (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton[reply]

I never heard of him before the the three articles you created appeared today, and I know nothing about the theory, let alone do I have an opinion on it. Therefore, your impression that I'm trying to "suppress" anything about Adoni or his theories is absurd. Please read the explanations I've been providing with all my deletion requests. They all explain quite exactly what my rationale is: Use of Wikipedia to advocate for a theory, in violation of the neutral point of view policy, and selection of topics that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability, let alone notability, given an apparent lack of independent reliable sources on those topics. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable WP:FRINGE researcher, with no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG let alone the mainstream attention to his fringe researches that would allow us to cover them in a properly neutral way. Helixq and 8 prime spirals should probably also be deleted, again for lack of mainstream attention or secondary sourcing that would show notability and allow neutral coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 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.

Drprinceton, commenting after close with a statement starting with "Wiki nazis" isn't really conducive to changing anybody's mind about speedy deleting this. If you object to the close, please take it to Deletion review. In the meantime, this is being confined as it's wholly immaterial to the nomination above, which is closed. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drprinceton (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton[reply]

Wiki nazis have already deleted the 3 articles, it's why most in Academia consider wiki to be a JOKE. The original article was ocmpletely neutral despite what some mod happy person believes. The fact wiki deleted all 3 articles shows how slanted wiki is.

FACTS

2012 prime spirals were PROVEN in a test by PyPrimes part of the Python Project to be faster than all known prime algorithms, that's MAJOR NEWS and the 8 Prime Spirals are what this new algorithm is called.

Now there is some minor debate about who theorized the 30Mod Prime Spirals and besides 30Mod prime spirals being front and center in PyPrimes a GITHUB project that an real expert forum on mathematics compared to wiki, the work done in PyPrimes testing the sieve of Eratosthenes (a wiki article) and prime wheel factorization (a wiki article) all got beaten in speed by 8 PRIME SPIRALS.

THAT IS MAJOR MATHEMATICS NEWS

Now the 60Mod prime algorithm known as sieve of Atkin has a wiki page too, so Python the computer language project that test the prime algorithms, the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, sieve of Atkins, prime wheel factorization all have WIKI PAGES, yet the new kid on the block that BEAT THEM ALL and the test was done at GITHUB the top site for such open academic evaluations IMO, says 8 Prime Spirals or 30Mod prime algorithm IS THE KING OF THE HILL in creating primes. It beat all the algorithms you have pages on. Yet the new fast algorithm you want to ignore. PyPrimes used GITHUB to verify the results. Anyone can download PyPrimes and test all the prime algorithms YOU HAVE PAGES ON, and they all lose compared to 8 PRIME SPIRALS yet this site (wiki) is now deleting any mention of the 8 Prime Spirals, the person who created it in 1995 and his new project a new computer language using his now proven math theories.

So GITHUB was cited, Python is a major wiki page, wheel factorization is a major wiki page, sieve of Eratosthenes is a major wiki page and even the sieve of Atkin all have pages.

YOU SEE WHAT A JOKE WIKI IS deleting the proven fastest algrithm that people are now SEARCHING FOR INFO ON.

Anyone can see the original article it was neutral, yet wiki allowed it to be deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals

Now there is controvsey over the claims to who discovered 30Mod prime theory, and Usenet has numerous of posts showing Dr. Adoni was discussing 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime algorithms. SO IT IS HIS WORK.

Yet in 2004 Atkin comes along and now you have a page about his 60Mod theory, guess what 60Mod prime theory and 30Mod and 90Mod were all discussed in the 1990's in usenet due to DR ADONI's work.

Now do any of you see how foolish wiki looks deleting the page.

So does a test PROVING the significance of 30Mod prime algorithm being fastest than all known prime algorithms that all have wiki pages warrant a page for the KING OF PRIMES ALGORITHMS?

YES IT DOES

For anyone to say test results subject to peer review by academics on GITHUB is not a trusted source look foolish.

SO THE CITE TO THE TESTS on GITHUB via PYPRIMES is defacto proof of a neutral source to make the claims.

OR DO NONE OF YOU GET THAT?

GITHUB is the neutral source CITED as proof 8 Prime Spirals are now KING OF THE HILL in primality, and that is NEWS WORTHY. Since wiki has so much stuff on the slower primes to not have a page on the 8 Prime Spirals citing GITHUB and PYPRIMES as proof it is real, is a JOKE.

Anyway, I'll just email the Adoni group what this site is doing and how they think I'm him, or an assoicate, so they can laugh at WIKI and maybe put notice on their network to the moronic statments made here.

PUT THE PAGE BACK

a. The cite to GITHUB and PYPRIMES open source test is PROOF of the claims, anyone can download Python and PyPrimes and test all the algorithms YOU HAVE PAGES ON and guess what Einsteins, all your wiki page algorithms LOSE to the Prime Spirals.

b. Sieve of Atkins uses 60Mod prime theory, guess what Dr. Adoni had it in his work on 30Mod prime TEN YEARS EARLIER, so his work is connected to that as well.

C. Prime Wheel Factorization a wiki page, it lost to the Adoni Prime Spirals too, yet you think wiki should not discuss prime spiral theory?

D. Sieve of Eratosthenes, 2300 years old now and the first prime algorithm to out perform it, THE ADONI PRIME SPIRALS

Now the article noted Atkins is using work that was public for almost 10 years. The article noted an ERROR in calling the prime spirals croft spirals since Steven Croft claimed to have discovered them in 2010. Yet the fact is Usenet has the discussion on 30Mod, 60Mod and 90Mod prime theory in the 1990's way before Atkin or Croft made any claims to them.

Anyway, to see sledge hammer nazi level censorship at wiki shows why WIKI IS A JOKE to academics.

For this topic to say GITHUB is not a major cite is a JOKE. For this topic to say a new prime algorithm that has beaten all the prime algorithms listed on Wiki is a JOKE as to the topic not being relevant.

PUT THE PAGE BACK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals

Drprinceton (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)drprinceton[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. How did this survive for three years? Being an orphan may be one reason. Now preserved for your delight at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Pilot Season (film). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Season (film)[edit]

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

Feels definitely like a hoax to me. Freshh! (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - hoax - I have found no reliable sources. Kevin Smith made only the movie Mallrats in 1995. Selena Gomez was 3 years old in 1995. The names Peter and Louis of the characters are names from Family Guy. The budget and box office for part 1 and 2 are the same. -- Taketa (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first I wanted some more input, but now I am 100% certain that this is a hoax. I am changing to speedy delete. -- Taketa (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-hoax, also Weinstein studios didn't exist till 2007. Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just checked and its box office is exactly the same as Mallrats. Surprise nobody caught this till now. Wgolf (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. This is a pretty clear hoax. Given how insanely popular the Jay & Silent Bob films are, there's no way that two films featuring them (and directed by Smith) would have received absolutely no coverage. What's even more telling is the complete lack of discussion on fan forums and whatnot when it comes to Pilot Season. Even if by some strange, random chance the media were to have completely ignored Smith's early work, the fandom wouldn't. And you have to consider that these films were supposedly made when Smith was starting to hit his peak, meaning that it's pretty unlikely that there would be absolutely no coverage about these movies. Then you have to figure that Trevor Moore would have been about 17 and in high school when he made Pilot Season 2. This would be before Moore even got started with his public access show, meaning that Smith would have been calling on a high schooler with no prior experience in film or directing: it's very unlikely, to say the least. Not to mention that Selena Gomez didn't start acting until 2002 and would have been about 4 years old when Pilot Season 2 was made. Bluntly put, there's no coverage in RS, no coverage in fan forums and the like, and one of the directors for the second film would have been too young to have performed as a director. This is very, very blatantly a hoax and couldn't be any more blatant unless they were to say that Shirley Temple came out of retirement to perform in a lead role. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-man that just made me laugh. I am surprise nobody noticed this till now you know. Wgolf (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was already tagged as a hoax, and I declined it. I don't see why you need to tag it again. If you believe it's a hoax, there's no problem with your speedy deleting it on that basis. I certainly won't object.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why you wanted more input, I had the same reservation myself. With the current case made above, I think it is painfully clear at this point that the subject is non-existant, and this article can be deleted. -- Taketa (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax and fails WP:V. And should be listed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia too (created 14 April 2011, deleted August 2014). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:V. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:40, 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 00:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Grahovac[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined without a clear reason as to why being provided. Reasons from the last afd still apply. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - If needed, he can be mentioned somewhere on Bosnia and Herzegovina national under-21 football team. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep per reasons given by Pharaoh of the Wizards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Has not played at senior international level and has not played in a fully professional league. Has yet to play in the Austrian Football Bundesliga. Article can be restored when he has played a game. -- Taketa (talk) 06:24, 27 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) 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has now played in a FPL. Needs expanding to show GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 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) 08:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He has played in a Fully professional league therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. This was not the case at the time of nomination, but things change. He is now notable. IJA (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Player has signed for SK Rapid Wien and this is the start of the season even if plays 1 game or even a few minutes as a game as a sub as early as this Sunday's game through not confirmed whether he will play against SV Grödig he becomes notable as per WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @ Pharaoh of the Wizards "if" = WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can recreate the article if/ when he is deemed notable. Regards IJA (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Fully Agree with you that he is not notable at the moment hence did not vote keep and only on the bench till now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Now passes WP:NFOOTBALL now after having actually made his debut in today's game against SV Grödig.This is the second recent AFD where a player becomes notable way after the discussion started the other one is Rafael Páez AFD. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep passes WP:FOOTY now he has played against SV Grödig today in the Austrian Football Bundesliga in a fully professional league the main reasons for seeking deletion have now been overcome. Please note this the start of the season and he is most likely to play more games and he is a young player just 21 years.Here and this confirms it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator. Since has now played in the Austrian Bundesliga, the article obviously passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharaoh of the Wizard's detective work above. Subject satisfies the specific notability guideline for association football players per WP:NFOOTBALL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 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 Speedy Deleted (A9) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RPM for Turntables and Orchestra[edit]

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

I could not establish that this is notable. It was prodded in 2010, response when removing prod is at: Talk:RPM for Turntables and Orchestra. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personals: College Girls Seeking...[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, lets make a decision either way. Unreferenced, I don't believe it has lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NF. The article does not show or demonstrate any nobility. It also contains a source that directly conflicts with WP:NF ("Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues"). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with respects to User:Oshwah, notability is not dependent upon an article saying 'I'm notable because..." or by sources being used or not IN an article... notability is dependent upon them being available. See WP:NRVE. I will do some work and report beck. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on that point, MichaelQSchmidt. Let me locate some sources and see if they are sufficient to meet WP:NF per WP:NRVE, which would cause my vote to change. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Per failing WP:NF. Expanding searches finds this soft core film exists, but lacks coverage in secondary sources. Being verifiable, it might be worth being listed in filmography's of its cast and production, but not as a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnaresh Giri[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was that the subject has not competed at a level of cricket considered notable by WP:CRIN, but the PROD was removed with the rationale that he "may not have played First-class, List A or T20 matches till now. But he has already played Youth ODI matches. He is also in Nepal's squad for 2014 Asian Games and Nepal have recently been awarded T20I status. So the days are not so far when Ramnaresh will be playing those matches as well. So I believe it's not important to delete the article right now. Have patience!" But the article still fails WP:CRIN. Ytfc23 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRIN he does not qualify and per WP:CRYSTALBALL we shouldn't speculate that one day he might do. Johnlp (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN. Perhaps it could be moved into the userspace so as and if he plays first-class/List A/Twenty20 matches the article can be recreated? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTALBALL. Fails WP:GNG for now. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:29, 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 wrong venue - you need Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (Non-admin closure. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Rail Transit[edit]

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

Misleading Page title as the page where is directed is never called "Mass Rail Transit" PhilippineRevolution (talk) 10:33, 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 wrong venue - you need Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (Non-admin closure. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MRT 2 Sat[edit]

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

Misleading title causing confusion to readers as all pages linking to this page are now fixed and directed to the corrected page PhilippineRevolution (talk) 10:19, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSCBank[edit]

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

Seems promotional, unreferenced and a most likely is non-notable. NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 09:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

db-g7 has just been placed on the article, could an administrator come along and close this AfD? NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would expect to see some coverage of a bank like this, even though it's in Lebanon. I couldn't find any. Its latest news page doesn't include any articles or press releases – just "8/16/2013 Content coming soon." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:11, 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 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Miller international tournament[edit]

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

This was a once off match, believe it fails WP:SPORTSEVENT Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. I agree; it fails WP:SPORTSEVENT in that it lacks reliable sources, most of the information is merely a list of stats more than it is notable information that makes the article worth being encyclopedic, and it does not appear to be a notable championship. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a one-off tournament this appears to be a non-notable friendly competition. No indication of GNG and major WP:NOTSTATS concerns. Fenix down (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable one-off friendly tournament. IJA (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kopernik (organization)[edit]

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

I stand by my prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement." Deprodded by creator "Object to deletion because Kopernik (organization) is a registered NPO in the US and had successful ongoing activities for the past 4 years". I am afraid this is simply not sufficient defense in light of the cited policies. PS. It's a shame that the creator was not trying to save valuable encyclopedic images showing that NGO's work in developing countries (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Waterfilters.jpg and others). PPS. See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Wojkowska. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, three dedicated articles: in the Jakarta Globe [1], Gazeta.pl [2], and the Jakarta Post [3]. Also a paragraph in the New York Times [4] and in a US Dept of State site [5]. Novickas (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some good finds. I am almost convinced to change my mind. Anyone else would like to comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. I was concerned about this article and the two others on the organization's founders from the start. They were produced by an SPA (who has done no other editing) who is likely related to the organization. The same user uploaded a number of copyright violations to Commons that were used in these articles and that had to be deleted. The text of the article still reads too much like an advertisement. But despite such concerns, I myself never nominated this for AfD because brief searches of the net seems to show enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I think we have to keep it, but it needs some strict, neutral editing. Michitaro (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's kept, I'll do a rewrite. Novickas (talk) 14:37, 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, Wifione ^Message 06:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Novickas brought up several valid sources. In addition, the article contains an article from the Huffington Post, which covers the organization in some detail. Spirit of Eagle (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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Akstinat[edit]

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

Missing notability according to the notability guidelines, this artcile obviously serves only self promotional purpose. This person has actually done nothing notable. Except one fanbook about the Three Investigators and one satirical audiobook he did with his brother all his books are self published by his own organisation which lacks in notability also, no medial coverage about him, we had the fun with him and the 60 sockpuppets around him and his organisation in the german wikipedia before the deletion of both articles because of no notability. Seader (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as in my opinion it fails WP:AUTHOR. There's little or no coverage whatsoever apart from non-independent sources. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and just about everything else. The one reference is a virtually empty page, and the publications are self-published. Get rid of this, ASAP. And thanks for the info from @de wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if better references can't be provided. Deb (talk) 12:18, 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. Sandstein 15:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internationale Medienhilfe[edit]

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

Missing notability according to the notability criteria, this article obviously serves self promotional purpose. This organisation has done nothing notable and I cant see any of the criterias for notability fullfilled. Since it offers commercial oriented consulting and advertising services to small number newspapers (for this actions there is also no independent source given) and is a snall self publisher ( publishing only its own books) it is to be seen as a commercial organisation. No widespread medial coverage about it ( in the last 20 years around 20 journalistic articles where it gets mentioned but only menioned). There is no office, it is a mailbox organisation without an office and only run by the founder Björn Akstinat himself and according to his saying supported by 10 volunters somewhere in germany (for which there is also no independent source), from his own or parents home (this is where the address given by the IMH leads to), where from he runs also his second organsiation for german music. Also for the so-called members of the IMH workgroup there is no independent and reliable source given. The data this IMH gives as results of their research is the result of Björn Akstinat himself using Google how he himself admits in an interviev published at the 25/06/2014 in a blog. We had already the fun with the company spam of 60 sockpuppets around this organisation in the german wikipedia before the deletion of this article since of missing notability.

Is a private mailbox organisation which is run by one person from his own or his parents home with no independent medial coverage about its specific actions or work really notable for the Wikipedia. I doubt that. Seader (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:19, 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, Wifione ^Message 06:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only reference is to its own web site. No evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 22:10, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ekos Global[edit]

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Startup does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding anything in the way of WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:37, 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, Wifione ^Message 06:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article just describes the general market and this start-up. I can find sources for other firms named Ekos in the medical, cosmetics and market research fields, but no reliable sources about this firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex[edit]

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

The range is not notable, as virtually every major military installation has a shooting range, and there is nothing special about this one. Yes, there are citations about it out there, but that does not mean that this establishes notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant really see anything of note in this, perhaps a consideration to mention it in Fort Carson but I suspect it is not even notable for a mention in that article either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a particularly notable range.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin RHaworth as copyright infringement (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Multimodal Information Management (IM2)[edit]

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

I AFD'ed this article 3.5 years ago, with the nom meeting with no consensus and only two participants. Possible academic notability, but serious conflict of interest concerns with both the creator of the article (see the first AfD) and with the editor responsible for most of the changes since then, User:Mguetl. A search for Guetl on the site brings up a Martina Guetl in management of the IDIAP Research Institute—which also conveniently has its own article, heavily edited by Ms. Guetl.

As to the article itself, there are no external references. Large chunks of text have been lifted from the IM2 website (compare the third paragraph in the second section with this page from the site). Additionally, the text itself is rather promotional in nature ("It is a unique program combining state-of-art technologies and cutting edge research..."). Raymie (t • c) 05:10, 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 delete. Number 5 7 12:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Factor[edit]

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

Not notable. Best known as a frontman from a non notable band (afd). Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Prod removed without comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with user Duffbeerforme with their claim of Seven Factor in no notable and should be deleted for "being best known as front man for non notable band". 1st, the band being reffered to as Non Notable, was notable. their wiki page was deleted due to act of vandalism...this entire proposal to delete seems to be based off of that one aspect of an obviously multi level career. 2nd. Seven Factor was also associated with notable bands such as Crossbreed ( artemis records) and 16VOLT ( METROPOLIS RECORDS) Links to these bands are on the wiki page. 3rd. Seven Factor is the resident engineer at the world famous KDS STUDIOS in Orlando Florida,Formally transcon studios which launched such bands as NSYNC and the backstreet boys. Eminem has done his last 3 albums in this studio. His clients in this studio include some of the top selling artists on the billboard charts past and present. 4th. As a solo artists he has done remixes for notable bands Such as Tweaker, and Psyclon Nine.. and has a FACEBOOK VERIFIED Facebook page of just under 60,000 followers. 5th.As a producer and engineer he works closely and collaborates on projects with grammy and platinum sales award winning artists such as Chris Vrenna( Nine Inch Nails. Marilyn Manson, Knarles Barkley, Tweaker,) and Sara Lee Lucas( original Drummer for Marilyn Manson) 5th. As a multi media artists Seven Factor has done Video woe for such Notable bands as KMFDM, and CombiChrist... as well as mobile apps on the iTunes and android platform for Combichrist. It is obvious that Seven Factor has a long lasting, and very well established career in the music industry in many aspects of the filed , with many different bands .. not just 1 that was mistakenly deemed " not notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Resume, but notability is not inherited from those who he has worked with. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its not "inherited" but according to wiki guidelines he meets the requirements for being involved in projects with "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" - thats taken directly from the guideline.. perhaps you did not read the entire article and are focused only on one part. your incorrect statements lead me to believe that perhaps you did not notice he was involved in multiple notable bands.. and has worked on projects with multiple other notable musicians and producers like himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 12:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 12:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. At least this hasn't (yet) turned into the gigantic clustermess that surrounded the HUman Factors Lab AfDs. --Finngall ^talk 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finngall, Why do you think this should be deleted. You mentioned the Human Factors Lab AFD.. were you apart of that conversation?. I feel perhaps you are ignoring the examples shown that Seven Factor meets the Notability guideline requirements and are basing your "delete" comment on that previous Human Factors Lab page.. when its only slightly related to this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10F8:7FD9:D69A:20FF:FE61:9DF5 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the following criteria for musicians as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others. 4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country Example. Toured with KMFDM as support. here is one example of the extensive coverage of that north america tour http://www.steadymagazine.com/news/news-kmfdm-tour-north-america-this-august/ 6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles Seven Factor is currently working directly with members of KMFDM, Marilyn Manson, And Nine INch Nails — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10F8:7FD9:D69A:20FF:FE61:9DF5 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4, does not have extensive coverage. #6 Is not a member of any notable acts. Notability is not inherited from those who he has worked with.duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again duffbeer is incorrect with his statements Was a member of 2 listed notable acts. Crossbreed ( Artemis records) and 16volt ( metropolis records) also Engineer/producer on one of crossbreeds Albums. As far as the "notability not inherited" statement. The guideline states at least 2 notable members involved in project. So listed notable members other than himself involved on projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the story yet again. Gone from associated to being a member. He was not a member in the commonly held sense, just a touring musician. Even if you count that as being a member it does not make him a prominent member. Your ensemble comment is a red herring, Mr Factor is not an ensemble. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion mr duffbeer. The facts however are all listed and have sources showing it meets the notability guidelines. Seven factor has been a member of multiple notable bands as a musician. Has worked on many notable projects as a music producer. And has worked directly with other notable musicians and producers on those projects. He is a resident is house Engibeer in a notable recording studio with over 200k RIAA sales. There have been multiple examples of why this page should be kept. However only 1 is needed. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at your so called facts and sources.

Claim: "Seven factor has been a member of multiple notable bands as a musician".

Relevent policy would be WP:MUSIC#6 - "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles"

What bands?

Human Factor Labs?. Not notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab (band), deleted on both occasions despite similar spurious claims and sources as those provided here.

Duffbeer was a part of the Discussion to delete Human Factors Lab. . His nomination to delete this thread is no coincidence. he is basing his motives for wanting this page deleted almost Entirely on the notability of Human Factors Lab as decided by that dsicussion, and not taking into full account the other aspects that should be taken into consideration when deciding if Seven Factor should be kept or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10F8:7FD9:D69A:20FF:FE61:9DF5 (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbreed? Member lists from Wikipedia, James Rietz, Chris Nemzek, Corey Floyd, Kem Secksdiin, Ian Hall, Jay Diesel, Charlie Parker, Travis Simpkins, Dan "DJ" Izzo, Phil "Flip" Marquardt, Bishop, Mike Cais, Chris Morris, Dan Fox, Angel Bartolotta, Jason Tropf, Travis Inskeep. No Seven Factor. Evidence provided that Mr Factor was ever a member, let alone a prominent member. None.

16volt? Member lists from Wikipedia, Eric Powell and Mike Peoples. No Seven Factor. Members list from allmusic also does not have Seven Factor. Evidence provided that Mr Factor was ever a member, a single show announcement where S3ven played guitar. No sign of him being a prominent member.

Claim: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians"

Mr Factor is not an ensemble.

"Seven Factor is currently working directly with members of KMFDM, Marilyn Manson, And Nine INch Nails". That does not make him notable.

The claim that the "previous Human Factors Lab page" is "only slightly related to this". When the article on Seven Factor introduces him as "best known as the founding member of the industrial band Human Factors Lab." [6] (as it did before you changed the story) it's a bit hard to believe it's only "only slightly related"

A lie: "their wiki page was deleted due to act of vandalism". Let me guess, there was a big conspiracy to hide them from the world?

Another Lie "here is one example of the extensive coverage of that north america tour". No extensive coverage of Seven Factor touring in the provided link, just a passing mention of Human Factors Lab being on the tour in a routine announcement of the tour.

There has yet to be one truthful policy based example of why this page should be kept. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing you previous post MrDuffBeer... lies and conspiracy is a strong words..lets take a step back from what appears to be an emotionally driven pursuit to have this page delted, and address the exact facts

Human Factors Lab -there was a call for deletion of the HFL page was because a user called "Bringthemdown" requested it.. this user was a former band member and created this account for the soul purpose of vandalizing the Human Factors Lab account. There was an extremely long deletion conversation about it. a large majority was made of of current band members voting to keep it, and previous band members voting to delete it. However there were a few people involved that were just regular wiki users that also voted to keep it.. in the end these votes were ignored, and Human Factors Lab was deemed not notable by wiki standards despite being a signed band 14 MAJOR US and Canadian tours under their belt and 8 albums releases , .. . That decision was made.. nothing we can do about that . So if thats your reason for saying Seven Factor is not notable because he was a member of that band. Ok.. We will give you that one. so lets put that aspect behind us now and focuss on the other elements.

-Seven Factor as a solo musician and producer has been Facebook verified with a verified Facebook fan base of just under 60 thousand fans. he is currently working on a studio album under that name. Other studio members of this ensemble include Chris Vrenna of Nine Inch Nails and Mariln Manson fame. And Steve White of KMFDM fame. So in this sense, Seven Factor is indeed an ensemble, with at least 2 notable members as per wiki guidelines

-Crossbreed. Seven Factor was the engineer/producer on the crossbreed New Slave Nation EP During this time frame he was also 1 of 2 keyboardists. you are correct, he is not credited on the crossbreed wiki site.. however is credited on the actual CD. Maybe someone reading this has a copy. I do not

-16VOLT. Like Many industrial bands 16volt is lead by 1 main person Eric Powel.. Other examples of this include Nine Inch Nail( trent Reznor) , KMFDM, ( Sascha), and Minitry( al jourgensen). .. 16volt by design is a band signed to Metropolis records as 1 person. It is considered a "super group" Eric Powel, the main driving force and only permanent member of that band, recruits other well known musicians in the Genera to perform when he tours. This was the case in the 2008 Denial Hwy tour, Featuring Seven Factor.. credited in a few of the MANY press released as S3ven as you pointed out. There are literally dozens of examples of reviews, announcements , ect from this tour mentioning Seven Factor as being a part of this band. if you would like i would be happy to ink them all, or feel free to google them yourself. Please let me know i you need me to link all of them and i will. The Fact that he was a "touring member" should not make him any less notable considering that 1. that is the nature of that band, and 2. he was chosen to be a part of it because he was considered notable by industrial music fans that attend 16volt shows.

Seven Factor is a music producer and musician. being a music producer, he works on many music projects with many well known musicians. We seem to have covered his own personal music career fairly well, but what are the guidelines concerning , albums, producers or audio engineers?....there are many well known engineers that are considered notable, but have never played in a "notable"band or are themselves considered an ensemble but are still vital parts of the recording process, and are considered notable in the music industry. Seven Factor is a resident producer at KDS music studio. This is one of the major recording studios in the country responsible for well over 200 million certified RIAA sales. Lets look at what that means. The People at one of the largest studios in the WOLRD , with some of the biggest artists in the industry ( Rhianna, Eminem, Dr Dre, Puff Daddy, Brittany Spears,NSync. backstreet boys)felt that Seven Factor was notable enough as a producer not just to invite him to work in this legendary facility, but to give him his own keys to the entire building, and his own office. As im sure you know.. Office space in facilities like this are not just given out, and are a rare thing to see in this industry.. other examples would be Pharrel has a simular office at south beach studios in Miami, fl . I think this speak volumes alone as to Seven Factors notability, however while at this studio he is working as a producer and engineer on a number the albums recording a number of major label artists. he is also working very closely,in an ensemble environment with members of Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, and KMFDM , they write songs together, for varies projects. Again.. I think that it should be considered the caliber of artists we are talking about. Now, it is obvious these artists are MORE notable than Seven Factor.. and with the amount of platinum albums and Grammies those artists have, it is not likely they would work with Seven Factor over the span of a few years of they did not view him as a peer in their industry

Regarding your claim of people lying, by saying it was an act of vandalism. It is easy to se by looking at the edit history of the HUman Factors Lab wiki page that it had been under attack of vandalism for a short time before the deletion request was put in. Do you need a link to show this as well? This was already addressed in the opening statement of this edit what took place there.

your "another lie" post. regarding touring Seven Factor was on a 45 date US/Canadian tour with KMFDM, , .. .. This was supported by Metrolpis Records, and there was coverage of the tour national by almost every major news outlet from rolling stone to the gauntlet as well as on a local level in every city news paper the tour visited. If you want to google KMFDM tour 2011 i am sure you will see dozens of examples of this. Seven Factor was an active member of this tour from its inception and represented on every flier and news coverage of the tour under the band name Human Factors Labin that same year he was involved in a 30 day tour with the band Mushroomhead .. 1 of 4 tours he had done with that band.If you are not familaru with Mushroomhead they just got off the recent mayhem tour which played to about 20K people a night, along side bands like Korn, and trivium. These tours were done under the name Human Factors Lab and are listed on each bands own wiki page. Listing Human Factors Lab

in closing, i strongly feel that duffbeer is basing his vote to delete based soley off of the Human Factors Lab deletion that took place.. in his mind.. If Human Factors Lab was deleted then Seven Factor must be deleted as well... in his mind he feels they are one in the same.. Lets be very clear that they are NOT the same. Seven Factor was the driving force behind Human Factors Lab... Just like Gene Simmons is the Driving force behind Kiss and Trent Reznor is the Driving force behind Nine Inch Nails......both examples have extensive careers outside of these bands.. Seven Factor is no different. I ask that the person making the desicion on this page please take this into consideration and make a fair decision based off of what it present here, not off of a previous thread — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10F8:7FD9:D69A:20FF:FE61:9DF5 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that people can still read those afds. Anyone that does so will see how full of it your summary is. Not good for the credibility of any of your arguments. As for the rest of your wall of text, none of it makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:MUSBIO. Artist is not subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician. He has not been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. I was going to try to close this, but most of the mess above is tl;dnr material. Instead, I just took a look at all the references cited in the article. None of them even come close to providing the kind of coverage needed to satisfy WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 26 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, Good afternoon (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not entirely sure why this was relisted but there's no harm I suppose. There are at least 4 policy-based arguments for deletion and one very long (but entirely unconvincing and entirely non-policy) essay. If the proponents had put as much time into getting the subject some actual coverage in reliable sources as they have trying to argue their not-very-convincing case here then the subject would probably have been notable a long time ago. Having read the wall of nonsense above and have conducted my search, I can't help but agree with all but the proponent here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Keep"". I don't think we can entirely discount the points in the "essay" however I agree it could be formatted better. Are there any tips to help the article so that it meets wiki notability standards since it seems to be notable in the "real world" so to speak. I think we all have a common goal of improving wiki. Which seems expanding and improving articles is a better way to accomplish this than simply deleting. Or arguing

No amount of editing is going to make the subject more notable. The arguments in the essay above are pointless because they completely ignore the fact that Wikipedia has fairly well-established inclusion criteria and this subject doesn't meet those criteria. Wikipedia functions in the "real world" and specifically requires "real world" coverage written by "real world" authors and published in "real world" magazines and newspapers. Providing examples of such coverage would go a lot further than poor attempts at sock-puppetry. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

examples have been given to show that Seven Factor is a notable music producer. You're welcome to disagree with this but please refrain from editing posts made by other users voting to keep it just because you disagree that keeping it is in fact the correct desicion. It's notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.148.218 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, okay "concerned citizen who, having made no other edits ever, just happened to find this discussion". We'll assume good faith but we're not idiots. It's been tried before and has failed many, many, many times. I was doing you a favour but whatever... non-policy SPA contributions will likely be ignored anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you seem offended that I have not been signing my posts. My apologies. I am new to wiki. This has not been done with any Malaicous intent . Nor should it devalue the input I have added My concern is this article which is why I have contributed to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not "offended" at all - your posts are being signed automatically by a bot, not by me. But that has revealed you are in fact the same person responsible for the essay above (rather than a "new" person) and that you've already contributed a !vote above. So I have, once again, struck your second !vote as you only get one. Keep digging. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed you were offended by your attempts to discredit my opinion and my vote with your comments regarding sock puppetry. Single porpose accounts. Your "looks like a duck" test. Link. Make claims that I was implying you're stupid. Even your little "keep digging" thing at the end. False counterproductive and uncalled for on all accounts.

Your second !vote will be ignored anyway and trying to reinstate it is disruptive. You're not doing yourself any favours. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "not doing myself any favors". Could you please elaborate. Also you keep referring to my one vote not counting. Why would my vote "not count". Also. Is this desicion based off of votes? I was under the impression that there would simply need to be one example showing that the article meets notabity guidelines. Correct? Examples have been shown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read WP:CONSENSUS and give some though to whether your conduct thus far is likely to build said consensus among your fellow editors. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article does not discuss the artist extensively. An internet search of the subject fails to establish notability as well. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-meets notability guideline requirements Specifically "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" Seven Factor, the band, contains two prominent members. Three if you consider Seven Factor, the person, himself 1.Chris Vrenna of Nine Inch Nails, Tweaker, and Marilyn Manson fame 2. Steve White of KMFDM and Pig Fame. both members have been showed to be associated directly with Seven Factor ,the person, and are members of Seven Factor, The Band,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.251.218 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please note this is the third time the IP in question has !voted (the only three contributions in favour of keeping this). Removing duplicate votes is met with edit-warring. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually USer Stalwart1111 is incorrect in their statement that the only "IP in question" has voted multiple times and that the votes from IP are the only 3. If you look back on this discussion you can see this to be true. There have been more than 3 votes to keep the page. and they are not all from the same person, or IP. The question is does this page meet notability requirements. It has shown to meet number the requirement regarding 2 or more notable members as being involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:10F8:7FD9:D69A:20FF:FE61:9DF5 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this discussion speaks for itself. The fact that you aren't signing your posts doesn't mean the IP address isn't recorded. Everyone can see for themselves. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aalok Bhardwaj[edit]

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

I think the subject lacks the sufficient notability for actors. Only one useful references is presented, which indicate little notability. Article suffers from serious WP:COI and is the work of WP:SPA's, mainly here to promote Ravindra Prabhat and their family. The article creator and other main contributor are perhaps related to the subject. The author of the only useful reference is also part of this circle of SPA's.Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The article fails The GNG and notability for actors. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: as editor above notes, fails GNG re notability for actors. No record at all at IMDb, although there is a similarly named person, Alok Bhardwaj, with one credit to his name. Possible hoax of some sort. Quis separabit? 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Vietnamese television schedule[edit]

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

Wikpedia is not a Tv guide (WP:NOTTVGUIDE). This article is totally unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage to prove the wp:Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me, why there are articles like 2014–15 United States network television schedule. I try to create Vietnamese articles based upon this kind. TanPhat Nguyen ^{talk- -contrb} 14:15, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It always annoys me that, within a few days of a new article's creation, it gets nominated for deletion. As for the "other stuff exists" argument, the United States is vastly larger than Vietnam and has more notable programming. — Wylie pedia 16:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic; just a TV guide. Neutrality^talk 02:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per obvious violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 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 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristy's Pizza[edit]

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

I created this article back in September of 2009 thinking that it was notable enough for Wikipedia. The problem with the article is that I feel it just doesn't meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. It relies mostly on a primary source, with only a secondary source supporting it. I did another search to see if I could come up with any new sources that might better establish the notability of this company, but I was not able to find anything. Though it has been consistently ranked as a Top 100 Independant pizza chain (supported by the secondary source), I don't feel this is enough to pass WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominators rationale. Meeting WP:GNG is not a particularly high bar and just 2-3 independent restaurant reviews would do it. Those have not been identified in the five years this article has existed. It would be better to remove this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's one review, another, and here's a newspaper article that mentions the subject. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not meet notability requirements. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the references are to Cristy's Pizza sites. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stuart (still life artist)[edit]

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

Very confusing article, it appears he does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is poorly written, but the subject has been covered in reliable sources and meets the threshold of notability. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those reliable sources? I only see one book in the references which is not written about this artist. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable resources. Doesn't appear in art reference materials. LaMona (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more material can be found. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (British artist)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Boleyn is right. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably) - His work seems to be in the collection of at least one notable gallery (Saatchi Gallery) - see here: [7] "Charles Saatchi himself asking to buy a piece of his work", as well as the Saatchi Gallery site [8]. There seems to have been a reasonable amount of critical attention given to him, both through exhibitions, solo and group, and through articles, see [9], [10] [11], [12], [13], and the work he produces appears distinctive in its look and techniques (such as collage portraits created from a collection of fragments of found, collected and photographed images) though how original that is I don't know - persons more expert in contemporary art are needed to comment on this AfD. But with all those sources and more I think he meets GNG. BTW, there seem to be two other living British artists named Paul Johnson, one an author and pop-up book creator, another a comic book illustrator. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some mentions of exhibitions in the references, but mostly gallery announcements. Rather typical for a contemporary artist who has not yet become famous. Still, not notable. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Note: Saatchi is not an indicator of signficance, I'm a professional artist and I didn't bother to keep my account there active, it's user-submitted. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete after two relistings. While I believe notability in this case is borderline, there are valid arguments from both keep/delete !voters. However neither side has established consensus for an alternative outcome. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peking Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability. Nor does the article itself give a reason for notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS.

The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed by James500 with the comment, "Wikipedia is a gazateer. You are meant to look for sources with a search engine. Is in Google Maps."

To counter this I need point out that Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map): see WP:NOTDIR. Nor is it a tourist guidebook: see WP:NOTGUIDE. The sister project, Wikivoyage, would be a better home for this content though I suspect that this road is too insignificant and lacking interest for Wikivoyage too.

It is insufficient to say that sources exist: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. You should name sources to prove notability. Before PROD a search was done. Before the AfD another search was done. This road is only mentioned as an address for various buildings or traffic ordinances. No source found gave any information about the road itself.

The existence of this road in Google Maps is irrelevant. Every road in the world seems to be in Google Maps: see Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Coverage in Google Maps does not prove notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to include an assertion that this page is a plausible redirect but forgot. Even if this road is not notable, I don't see why it can't be merged into, and redirected to, a list, which I imagine will satisfy LISTN. James500 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that NOTDIRECTORY only applies to lists and is therefore not relevant to this article which is not a list. James500 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia isn't a gazetteer. Maps are reliable secondary sources but don't demonstrate in-depth or significant coverage. The only mentions I can see online are in relation to businesses or buildings located on the road. Sionk (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars clearly states that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. James500 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I should clarify, not an indiscriminate gazetteer, judging by everything I've ever seen. The five pillars say W "combines many features of a... gazetteer". Subjects still need some notability. Sionk (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N means that a topic is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree that this is a non-notable road, I would like to point out that the assertation that "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" is erronious. Quoting the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. However the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia is, by long-standing consensus, limited to roads at the state-numbered-route level and above; all others must pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Public roads are of enormous interest to the general public and governments, and any public road (at least in the U.S, but Hong Kong doesn't seem to be different) attracts the attention of the world at large, and does so over a period of time, which means that public roads are always wp:notable. They are used, for example, to identify how to deliver mail, in a system known as the "street address". This is an extremely well-known system, known world-wide for centuries. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic can be WP:V verified using Google maps. Google satellite has more information and shows that this is a skyscraper district, which means that the significance of this road is more than appears from just its length. The "What Links Here" shows that this topic has a place in the encyclopedia as a part of the gazetteer, and that this topic is not WP:IINFO. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the article has been added to a navbox, which has been transcluded onto a number of Hong Kong articles. Whether each of these articles mentions Peking Road is very unlikely. In any case, the number of backlinks on Wikipedia is a very dubious means of establishing notability. Sionk (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE B5 states, "Check 'What links here' in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia." Perhaps you should ask the nom why they didn't report on WP:BEFORE B5. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you are asking about WP:BEFORE B5, you might also ask about WP:BEFORE B6, which states, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't specifically know how to avoid the navbox articles, and would like to know, but I didn't blindly mention the What Links Here. I'm sure that if you do your own research you will find that the encyclopedia is using these links. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While you are calculating the inbounds links to this article, don't forget to include the articles using One Peking and One Peking Road. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO is not a notability guideline, so your premise is false. Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point your making in relation to this AfD discussion. If you remove Peking Road from the navbox the 'integration into Wikipedia' will more or less disappear at one stroke. The consideration becomes irrelevant. But you seem to think that every road should have a Wikipedia article, something I fundamentally disagree with. I guess we'll have to agree to differ. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to click on each of the links at What Links Here to see if the link comes from a Navbox or is used in an article, then you can do a Wikipedia search on "Peking Road", and you will be able to select from snippets. Either way, you will find that your claim that the only place that this link is used is in the Navbox, is erroneous. You might have gotten a hint from my mention of One Peking Road and One Peking that two articles link in just from those two redirects. Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that I think Wikipedia should cover all roads, I can't pretend to understand why you would state that. Needless to say, the assertion is incorrect. The assertion suggests that you still haven't noticed my statement that WP:IINFO is not a notability guideline, yet you above used the word "indiscriminate" in reference to the gazetteer, so it appears that the thing you want to agree to disagree about is something that we are both already on record as being something about which we agree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:13, 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 05:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Unscintillating. James500 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating's arguments are not suitable reasons for keeping; see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that references are enough to establish notability. --Good afternoon (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unscintillating's argument collapses under policy and procedure. This topic can be WP:V verified using Google maps. WP:ITEXISTS, which is not notability. Google satellite has more information and shows that this is a skyscraper district, which means that the significance of this road is more than appears from just its length. WP:NOTINHERITED; the district and/or the buildings in it might be notable but the road is not just because they are. The "What Links Here" shows that this topic has a place in the encyclopedia as a part of the gazetteer, and that this topic is not WP:IINFO. WP:CONSENSUS is that the gazetteer part of the Five Pillars covers roads that are numbered routes in national or provincial-level systems. I.E. in the US, Interstate Highways, U.S. Highways, and State Highways are 'automatically notable' per 5P = Gazetteer; county roads and unnumbered routes must pass GNG to have individual articles. The references provided in the article do not establish that GNG is met; there is insufficient in-depth coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have turned the above statement by The Bushranger from a "Delete" vote to a "Comment": The Bushranger has already voted in this discussion. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching that! I'd completely forgotten I'd done that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons that I explained at the AfD on Tung Choi Street, I don't think NOTINHERITED is applicable in relation to notability derived from the buildings on the street, because they arguably are part of the street. James500 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I think I should also observe that ITEXISTS and NOTINHERITED are not policy, they are part of an essay. James500 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger's argument that the WP:V content policy is not a notability guideline, is a truism. The mention of the essay ITEXISTS in this context is verbiage. Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N nutshell explains that notability on Wikipedia is shown for those topics that have attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. We know from the article that this road was renamed in 1909, which thoroughly passes the test of time. Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Skyscraper district" means more than that there are tall buildings. This is an indicator of economic activity, activity which draws attention to the street in various ways, such as the publication of the street name in business advertising. This is also an indicator of the presence of a high volume of pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic, much more so than a country road of the same length. Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above on this page, The Bushranger says "WP:CONSENSUS is that the gazetteer part of the Five Pillars covers roads that are numbered routes in national or provincial-level systems." Could that user, or someone else, please provide some actual evidence that such consensus exists, such as a policy or a guideline or a well attended RfC. James500 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:NGEO--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All GEOROAD says is that certain roads "are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." It does not say that the reverse is true. It does not say that if those roads fail that test they are ipso facto non-notable or even that they are presumed to be non-notable. Accordingly it is possible for them to be deemed notable on other grounds if there is sufficient local consensus. This is often true of SNG that are intended to be broader than GNG. James500 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked WP:5P to see if there were any footnotes, but the only additional information is that "gazetteer" is wikilinked to Gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 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 17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operama[edit]

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

Delete non notable neologism [[14]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the overall direction (problem->solution) of the article, this WP:SPA article is probably more appropriately considered as promoting a firm: Operama Arts Administration Research Institute, which is starting up July-October 2014 according to their Wordpress blog [15]. Aside from its promotional bent, the article is riddled with unsubstantiated assertions: "Drama began in the United States during the 20th century". Really? Take a daytrip to Hades and the shades of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides may dispute that. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not entirely sure if it even exits but nonetheless we aint a dictionary. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, inaccurate and looks to be promotional blurb. Also appears to have a substantial copyright violation from here [16], which to my mind makes it a candidate to go asap – there isn't even any material that looks to be salvageable with a rewrite. Libby norman (talk) 11:07, 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. (Thanks Cavarrone for your improvements). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Airone[edit]

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

This article has been on Wikipedia since August, 2009 with hardly any marked improvement in it. In fact, there have been just 10 edits on this article in its lifetime. A search for sources to establish notability turned up nothing that I could determine. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. I expanded the article a bit, finding sources could be hard (especially considering the large number of false positives and the usual difficulties for non Italian-speaking editors) but the magazine is certainly sourcable, and it was and still is one of the most successful and historically important publications on its field in Italy. Cavarrone 19:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well know Italian magazine.User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Cavarrone, and because it passes the WP:NMEDIA magazine criterion #3, and probably #2 and #4 as well. This article notes the presence of Airone on a government (ANVUR) list of significant publications. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just can't find anything notable about this magazine. Although it gets mentions in the media, the mentions are not of a scientific nature, but mainly about its business. A look at recent issues shows this to be "popular science" at best. Looking at Wikipedia:NMEDIA#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals, I don't see this magazine meeting any of the criteria. If it is considered authoritative by other publications (as evidenced by citations from reliable sources) then the article doesn't show that. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, even accepting it is a magazine of "popular science" (actually it is probably so, but it was not for, at least, the first twenty years of its history), or even if it was notable only for its business and its commercial success, how this is supposed to hurt its notability? Your vote just smells of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and "WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE". Airone is notable for having received significant coverage by reliable sources (WP:GNG), for having been the most widely circulated scientific magazine in Italy, and yes it was also found authoritative: see the already cited pairing with National Geographic, while the book Magazines for Libraries refers to the magazine as "a stunning natural history magazine, the best of several European magazines", and the magazine La Civiltà Cattolica referred to it as a publication "of good scientific level". Furthermore, the magazine is widely cited by other scientific reliable sources; some examples, Dogs Never Lie About Love by Jeffrey Masson ("The phenomenon of wild and stray dogs is the subject of an excellent article by the Italian wolf expert, Luigi Boitani, in the Italian nature magazine Airone..."), A Naturalist's Guide to the Tropics by Marco Lambertini ("...the magazine Airone and its director, Salvatore Giannella, who, as a result of his having commissioned reportage on naturalistic themes, has several times permitted the organization of complex expeditions..."), The Rough Guide to Tuscany & Umbria by Jonathan Buckley, ‎Tim Jepson and ‎Mark Ellingham ("There are three marked circularwalks pioneered by Airone,the Italian natural history magazine..."), Tuscany and Umbria by Emma Jones ("the three marked circular walks pioneered in the 1980s by Airone, an Italian history magazine..."), Naturalised Birds of the World by Christopher Lever, Turismondo. Povertà, sviluppo e turismo responsabile by Alessandro Berruti and ‎Elisa Delvecchi, Le vie dell'arcangelo by Paola Giovetti, Sun, Sea, and Sound: Music and Tourism in the Circum-Caribbean by Timothy Rommen and Daniel T. Neely, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould, Sacred Species and Sites: Advances in Biocultural Conservation by Gloria Pungetti, Gonzalo Oviedo and Della Hooke, Galapagos: The Untamed Isles by Pete Oxford and Reneé Bish, Atlas of terrestrial mammals of the Ionian and Aegean islands by Marco Masseti... and a lot more. Cavarrone 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavarrone The references need to attest to the notability. It may be hugely popular, but what you have presented is not supported by the references -- at least the accessible references. There is one brief one (one paragraph) that says it is a popular journal, but does not give any background. There are two that simply say that the magazine's company contributed to the creation of a TV show. The recommendation in a reference book is nice, but those books recommend thousands of publications, all from the point of view of purchase decisions for libraries. All of what you have given above needs references. An article that talks about the publication history and the impact that the journal has had would be ideal. I was hoping to find more in the Italian article, but it is marked as not having sufficient citations. A search on Google Scholar did not turn up the citations you give above - it would be nice to know where you got those. But what would be more interesting would be what they cite - are there articles that have become the key articles on a topic? Are there articles that have started a movement? Also, the Airone article is still a stub. As a suggestion, you might want to look at the Scientific American article (itself not terribly strong on references), which emphasizes facts about the history of the journal, and talks about significant scientific articles. That is more convincing than circulation numbers, especially for a science magazine. Right now, the Airone article is very weak on content. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles to look at for ideas for a popular science magazine: Popular_Science_(magazine), National_Wildlife, Natural_History_(magazine). As you can see, these articles emphasize the content of the magazine and its contributors, not the business or popularity aspects. I think adding more about what the magazine has contributed to science would greatly strengthen the article. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, with respect you appears to have some basic WP:COMPETENCE problems here, let me clarify you some points. First, article references do not require to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and book sources are perfectly suitable for evaluate notability. WP:PAPERONLY is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, "the Airone article being still a stub" (I'd say now close to start-class) does not affect its notability, what it counts is that the article was an unsourced one-line sentence and it actually lists 12 reliable sources about the topic, covering some key points of its history, and just a couple of refs are about its (large) circulation. And however WP:TOOLITTLE and is another one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Third, after I listed a bunch of references, the answer "All of what you have given above needs references" is just pointy, some sort of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "What you have presented is not supported by the references" is at best inaccurate, actually every single line of the article is supported by reliable references, including the pairing with National Geographic and the quote about being the best natural history magazine in Europe. Even if it was, please read Wikipedia:Notability#WP:NRV, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." and "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.". Fourth, "A search on Google Scholar did not turn up the citations you give above - it would be nice to know where you got those", Google Books. It could give different results based on our location, but it is where I took most of the citations. Fifth, the current state of the Scientific American article has zero to do with our topic. I could easily point you several articles about academic publications which have a worse state than this article. This one will not be the best article in WP but has most of the basic informations about the magazine, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. WP:UGLY is another one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. We don't delete articles just because they are not featured-class articles, our just if we don't like it their current form, but just if they are non notable. Summarying, AFD is not cleanup and none of your arguments is minimally relevant to Wikipedia:Notability. I agree the article could be expanded emphasizing the contents of the magazine (and some citations above, which refer to explorations and routes that the magazine pionereed, show it is possible), but there is no deadline for expansion and improvements. Cavarrone 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made practical suggestions for the improvement of the article - some of which would take less time than your postings here. I'm done, because I think improving the article is more valuable than arguing about it. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we are in a deletion discussion, suggestions for the improvement of the article are welcome and some of your are certainly noticeable but they belong to an article's talk page discussion, they could not be used as the ground for asking the deletion of an article. Cavarrone 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cavarrone and Arxiloxos. James500 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in the article and previous discussion. Absolutely notable Italian magazine. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:24, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Herrick (pilot)[edit]

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

Non-notable casualty of the Cold War. We may want to consider DeBruin and this Cheney (not Dick) at the same time; but I figure deal with this one first. Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable why? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This site points to some coverage in reliable sources relating to his death, such as in the Washington Post - http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cgherrick.htm. Still probably doesn't get him over the notability threshold. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reply - seems to me that all three of these guys fall under WP:ONEEVENT. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If nothing more can be found, then I would agree. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, he was a pilot, he died when somebody took a pot shot at his aircraft while in a war zone, sad but hardly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article deleted per consensus but content has been merged into Labia pride as requested by 3 !voters Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courageous Cunts[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While there has not been a great amount of coverage of this site in English, there are a couple of French news articles that provide significant coverage.[17][18] If this article is not kept, I'd suggest that any useful content be merged to labia pride. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has more refs than, say, all the entries in Category:Bondage magazines but actually has a socially redeeming value, despite the name. It should remain a stub. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't really qualify under the GNG with the existing sources. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a separate page, but merge info. The topic is notable, but focusing on this specific site – which describes itself as a protest page and was launched in 2012 – there is not much beyond a bunch of links through to other projects/sites and a rather striking logo. I couldn't see much evidence of activity at Flickr either (other projects, such as Labia Library and Large Labia Project are way more active and give a much clearer indication of what it is they do). References, while solid, namecheck this within a wider discussion and Le Nouvel Observateur appears to be more or less replaying the info from the Salon article – I couldn't find any sources beyond these and Marie Claire when I checked. As Gobonobo suggested, there should be a merge of info into labia pride as CC seems to fit as a protest site within the wider movement. Libby norman (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but merge with labia pride. Seems like there are not very many outside sources referencing this webpage for it to merit its own page. Lyrric (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Maybe cut down to stub though, it has references including the reputable Salon --94.175.85.144 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just doesn't meet the WP:GNG in my eyes. It may in the future, in which the article may be recreated, but I don't think it's at that 'notable' stage as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 00:27, 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 no consensus. There is no doubt that this article fails GNG, which leaves EricEnfermero's argument based on WP:AUTHOR. Unfortunately, it was not clear to me on what basis WP:AUTHOR is supposed to apply (ie, which of the bullet points) so not surprisingly there was no clear rebuttal of this argument either. However, I note that the book in question gets a decent number of citation. As Lesser Cartographies commented, an article about the book may be a better option. There was no clear consensus for this either, but it remains an option for future editor discussion. In the meantime, I am retaining the material in this article per WP:PRESERVE SpinningSpark 13:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Denby (academic)[edit]

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable academic. Fails gng. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:AUTHOR. Added sources to multiple independent book reviews. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only references are 3 book reviews for a single book. None of the references is about the person. Book reviews might be evidence for the notability of the book, but they are not evidence for the notability of the author, especially the author of only one book. LaMona (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR #3 addresses book reviews, but it does apply to WP entries about authors. It doesn't make any distinctions based on how of the author's books meet that book review criterion. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sentimental Narrative and the Social Order in France. The citation counts for his journal publications are pretty low (which may be expected in this field; I don't know). We have more than enough WP:RS for a solid article on the book. That's probably the best way to retain this information. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:23, 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 17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Cameron (actress)[edit]

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

Appears WP:TOOSOON at best. Does not seem to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy -- WP:UPANDCOMING but not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one day, but not yet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:16, 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 Nelliyode Vasudevan Namboodiri. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nelliyod Vasudevan Namboodiri[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced for over 6 years. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • The article lacks significant coverage and even it is not referenced at all. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect page to Nelliyode Vasudevan Namboodiri, although that too needs some serious cleanups/formattings. The artist meets WP:BASIC , is a notable Kathakali performer (see here) and his style has been referenced in in various books - SaHiL (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the existence of the other article means that we should close this and redirect it, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. Whether or not the sources that have been identified are enough to save the other article is another matter. --Michig (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nelliyode Vasudevan Namboodiri per comments above. J04n(talk page) 09:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. (Non-admin closure.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Wan Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS.

The article was previously PROD but the tag was removed by James500 with the comment, "Wikiped'ia is a gazateer. You are meant to look for sources with a search engine. Is in Google Maps. Plausible redirect."

To counter this I need point out that Wikipedia is |not a gazetteer (geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map): see WP:NOTDIR. Nor is it a tourist guidebook: see WP:NOTGUIDE. The sister project, Wikivoyage, would be a better home for this content.

It is insufficient to say that sources exist: see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. You should name sources to prove notability. Before PROD a search was done. Before the AfD another search was done. This road is only mentioned as an address for various buildings or traffic ordinances. No source found gave any information about the road itself.

The existence of this road in Google Maps is irrelevant. Every road in the world seems to be in Google Maps: see Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Coverage in Google Maps does not prove notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Five pillars clearly states that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. James500 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of similar nominations is irrelevant. Besides it is not a mass nomination. The world "mass" is an exaggeration. You are implying that no time or consideration was given to the article before nominating. This is not true. Considerable time was given to it. In contrast James500 is mass opposing. Did you actually read the article or search for sources before posting here. The reason for nominating is that this subject is not notable and unreferenced. Please make a contribution here that deals with that issue. Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe not a "mass nomination" (although this was not mentioned in this discussion), but still 37 articles PRODed and/or AdDed within a few days. It's certainly requiring a considerable time from the community to deal with that. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree that this is a non-notable road, I would like to point out that the assertation that "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer" is erronious. Quoting the Five Pillars: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. However the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia is, by long-standing consensus, limited to roads at the state-numbered-route level and above; all others must pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 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 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RailsBricks[edit]

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

Fails notability. Created by someone with WP:COI. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. No external sourcing - in fact, relies entirely on its own website. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some sources and references for RailsBricks, most notably the Ruby Newsletter (30k subscribers) as well as a podcast link to episode 433 of the Ruby Rogues, an authoritative source on Ruby development. Should this page be deleted, I'd recommend that other pages citing other much less popular web frameworks such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo_(software) be also marked for deletion. 92.107.30.128 (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason of failing notability is invalid in this case as within the Ruby developers ecosystem, RailsBricks has acquired a certain amount of notability (see references). 92.107.30.128 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The rubygems site does not contribute to notability, nor does the single sentence + link at rubynews. That leaves us with one podcast, and railsbricks was only one topic among six discussed. There's just not enough out there in the way of WP:RS to warrant an article. If uptake continues and coverage starts to accrue, the article can be recreated. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously non-notable. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:14, 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. all SpinningSpark 22:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Connect (series 1)[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode team scores, game results and notes about contestants appearing on each episode of Only Connect. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") Most information within article falls under WP:ALS, since episode air dates, contestant notes, and team scores are unsourced.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Ample precedent that WP:UNSOURCED/WP:LISTCRUFT aggregate statistics of episode, individual game and tournament results for game show episodes do not meet WP:GNG/WP:EPISODE are discussed in similar AFDs, such as:

I am also nominating the following related pages because pages detailing season statistics for Only Connect seasons 2 through 10 are all similar and also fail WP guidelines discussed above:

AldezD (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per previous consensus on these types of articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AFDs listed as precedent don't appear to be directly comparable to these articles (it's hard to know without having seen the content of what was deleted). These are articles about the series - they contain episode lists, yes, but that's not all they have. (I may be biased, as I'm a contestant in series 10, so please bear that in mind when considering my comment). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is virtually no content in these pages, just a list of contestants and scores. The references are not notable. LaMona (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting is fine, provided the information contained in these pages is retained elsewhere - e.g. on a single page entitled "List of Only Connect Episodes" (cf. This list of The Simpsons Episodes, amongst many others as an example.) It is useful (and relevant) to have a consolidated source of information regarding airing times, contestants, etc. Simonalexander2005 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles have been useful to me (and others I presume) when I wanted to know the results and scores of previous episodes, but I don't know if that is reason enough for you guys to keep it :( Thanks a lot people. Feudonym (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Nothing encyclopedic & worth saving here, All of this fancruft belongs on some Wikia page. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:56, 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 Speedy Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gitaz Bindrakhia[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has only a very trivial coverage in media. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may I request a speedy delete per WP:G5 as the article creator is now blocked as a sock account. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable entertainer or speedydelete (as per above) if article creator has been blocked as a sock puppet. Quis separabit? 19:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edie.net[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N, specifically WP:WEBCRIT. There isn't any verifiable or reliable sources that argue for the website in terms of significance, notability, or cultural impact. It may be the "first" source of information for a focused area of study, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree per WP:N. This doesn't work. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:12, 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. Cyclopia has found sources and the article is being expanded upon. Withdrawn by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marysburgh vortex[edit]

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

Amazingly, this completely unreferenced article has been classed as B-class. But it does not even have an External links section which might add some uummppfftt to the article. WP:TNT and see if there is anything worth putting together afterwards. – S. Rich (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of book sources, thus passes WP:GNG. That article content is not perfect or it is unsourced is a problem dealt by simple editing, not deletion, and per our deletion policy (WP:TNT is not policy, nor guideline), issues can be solved by editing must be solved by editing, instead of deletion. Note that for WP:GNG, it is sufficient that sources actually are shown to exist, not that the article already contains them.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be a legitimate legend with at least a couple of objective sources showing some notability. I've removed all the cruft propagated by UFO/paranormal/sensational books/websites and original research (i.e. a detailed list of ships, the sinkings of many of them dubiously attributed to the so-called vortex) and stripped it down to a viable stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:02, 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating_an_article_about_yourself

[2] ttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140421-how-to-live-forever

[3] ttp://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/03/death_is_wrong_the_transhumanist_kids_book_by_gennady_stolyarov.html

[4] ttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-transhumanist-philosopher/201312/childrens-book-ponders-death

[5] ttp://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-transhumanist-wants-to-teach-kids-that-death-is-wrong

[6] ttp://mashable.com/2014/03/16/death-is-wrong-book/

[7] ttp://thefutureandyou.libsyn.com/the-future-and-you-april-9-2014

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]