Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 August	28 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Colony (film)[edit]

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

Google search turns up nothing Coin945 (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It exists, but I don't see any evidence that it's notable. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cpuser20. Its nice that among your first-ever edits, you found you way to AFD. Be well and happy editing. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. We have a short film from students at the University of Hawaii which was then screened at the Hawaii International Film Festival (and perhaps a few others), but never received enough coverage to merit a separate article. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warren E. Dixon[edit]

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

Has been a "first draft" for nearly 4 years now. Now while being a professor at a university is impressive, it does not mean that they get there own Wikipedia page. The publications section is blank. Wgolf (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC) WithdrawnWgolf (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to take a look outside of Wikipedia, Wgolf? His profile at UFL says that he has published a lot (see Google Scholar) and recieved a lot of recognition for his research. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—h-index is north of 35, which is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC criteria #1. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well when it comes to professors I've noticed different approaches to how Wikipedia keeps them or not, given how there are tons for schools, I was unsure what to say for this guy. Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS h-index is 20. Control theory is a relatively mature topic in mathematics and EE, so the citation counts for this individual are fairly impressive. Article needs more meat. Agricola44 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment-withdrawning this guy does meet the standards indeed. (I think when you went to a community college for a couple of years before going to a major college you kind of get a different idea of notable professors, yep that is what I did went to a CC for a few years). Wgolf (talk) 16:34, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gran[edit]

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

Has been tagged for additional citations for 7 years, only refs are from interviews and magazines. She sounds notable for being a child illustrator as well as her influences. But this sounds like she needs more info. Matter of fact very little has been added since 2007. (last update was in 2010 by a bot!) Now if someone can find more info that be great. (In a way she does sound impressive one respect, but I think this has been hanging around too long) Wgolf (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the last update was in 2010 has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, Wgolf. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and in some cases, potential can be more important than current state of an article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last edit is not quite why I was putting this here, but it just didn't come across as a article that could have one-also sometimes putting up these AFD's have helped in the past it seems. (Others put these up as well for long neglected articles)

Wgolf (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-okay thanks to whoever added refs! Withdrawing now! Wgolf (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey B Rishwain[edit]

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

Not sure how important this guy might be-plus the link is a dead link. Not to mention-the creator has the same name as this guy. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article as it stands does not even claim notability. In a search I found one article/interview [1] - it's about a person called Mikey Rishwain Bernard but I believe this is the same person (an earlier incarnation of the Mikey B Rishwain article also mentioned M for Montreal). However, one interview is not enough to establish notability. This article could be redirected to M for Montreal, except I doubt whether that subject is notable either, and I suspect it would not survive an AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no more than MelanieN could find. The only claim to notability is as program director for M for Montreal. I am One of Many (talk) 23:04, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket half-centuries by Mahela Jayawardene[edit]

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

We don't create lists for half-centuries - cricket lists for individual achievements are restricted to the more notable feats of centuries and five-wicket hauls. Also nominating for the same reason: List of international cricket half-centuries by Kumar Sangakkara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You could possibly have this sort of list for someone like Shane Warne, who never scored a international century, but for players like Mahela and Kumar, half-centuries are not notable enough for a list, the list of centuries is sufficient. The-Pope (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - centuries yes, but not lists for half-centuries. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Also for the linked Sangakkara list. Johnlp (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harrias ^talk 10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dawoodi Bohra Ashura locations[edit]

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

Unsourced list of dubious notability, for which I haven't been able to find any third-party source either on the web or on GBooks. I must add that I've run English queries only, as I'm not familiar with any of the languages of India.

Could be merged to Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that would add to that article's sourcing issues. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We wouldn't have a list for locations where Al Sharpton delivered sermons or locations where the Dalai Lama visited sick people. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this list nor is there any mainstream news coverage specifically on the topic of "locations where a religious group held holiday celebrations." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and MezzoMezzo.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls![edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AlvinMarplesJr (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some local coverage, but nothing to suggest that this group is one of "the most prominent of the local scene of a city" (from WP:BAND #7). Gongshow talk 00:42, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing notability here. Cpuser20 (talk) 02:33, 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kennington[edit]

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

"A fashion model and photographer" ~~Okay, but is she important enough for Wikipedia? The ref tells me zip. Wgolf (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)~~-withdrawn[reply]

Comment: Thanks for adding refs! Nomination withdrawn. Wgolf (talk) 23:39, 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. Without prejudice to speedy renomination, as "Why should I..." did not retract their opinion. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Anderson[edit]

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

~~Seems like a hoax-I looked him up and there is no BAFTA winner named Tristan Anderson as well. No pages link to here either. Wgolf (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)~~-Withdrawn[reply]

This is a Speedy Delete. Nothing to discuss. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly, I must admit, as a reaction to the above two editors and their inability to undertake even a basic search. BAFTA Children's: learning-secondary 2013 Winner "Just a Few Drinks": Harvey Woolfe, Dominic Sant, Tristan Anderson [2]. Is this a hoax? And is this too: http://docheads.org/?page_id=78 - A hoax? Really? That would make the 2500 pages that mention DocHeads also hoaxes. The legitimate question will be his notability - so discuss notability, not allegations of hoaxes, or giving pointless "nothing to discuss" opinions when there clearly are things to discuss. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well I was looking up any film winners with that name and couldn't find one at all. Wgolf (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I was unsure if to put this or not-but since I couldn't find him at all, and I thought based off the wording he was working on films, not TV. So yeah that was the problem there. Wgolf (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-I think a userfy be the best. (I added the link to the IMDB name which I did look up last night and had no info on it really either) Wgolf (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fixed on my keep opinion if it can be argued he is not notable. And I was overly harsh in my wording - I was just worried that this AfD might result in a speedy delete based on its initial responses. However, these days a documentary filmmaker's lot is not a happy one, so I would be cautious about judging this guy's significance/notability in the field of documentary film making based on mentions (or lack of) in sources that deal with films or TV in general. And if it is TV for children - that gets even less attention (though at least someone is giving out awards for them). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha its okay-hey its not as bad as when someone tagged a Oscar nominated screenwriter saying something like "so what if they were nominated they didn't win" that was a complete *facepalm* event, so yeah don't feel bad. You actually kind of helped (though the wording could of been better). Well whatever the outcome is, wish for the best! Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am thinking of withdrawing this now. Wgolf (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Forgot to withdraw this. (Feel bad about this but then again I might of helped more really, so don't feel bad) Wgolf (talk) 14:49, 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn, with no other delete !votes. Article has been tagged with {{Expand Thai}}. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakorn Lum[edit]

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

2 acting jobs-which that isn't the part that is why I'm tagging this though, main thing is the show and the musical have no pages and very little info on this guy. Either a userfy or delete. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what the reason for deletion is here, but if it's notability, he clearly passes the GNG. The Thai Wikipedia page lists 8 solo albums, 4 band albums, 2 feature films and 5 TV series in a career spanning over 20 years. That lots of Thai entertainment topics don't have articles on Wikipedia is due to lack of coverage, not lack of notability. As a side note, the article title should be Pakorn Lam. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I did not see the linked language article at all for some reason. Wgolf (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I think I will withdraw (or just wait till the time frame is up), but if someone can put up the template on the page of this that it can get more info in that language that be great! (I don't remember that template.) Wgolf (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closed I suggest adding better references. (non-admin closure) Bobherry talk 00:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N K Raghupathy[edit]

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

Only links are to Facebook and Twitter. Now he does sound like he could be a important individual, but based off of the refs, not so much. (those are not good sources either) Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article lacks the references but the person is notable and have significant coverage in public domain, the notability can be establish from timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Successful-but-not-yet-lucky/articleshow/7322932.cms, www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/ias-officer-or-clerk-single-test-scores-may-decide/article1-675524.aspx, www.thehindu.com/2005/09/11/stories/2005091113890600.htm. CutestPenguin ^discuss 06:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-Indian names I have the most trouble finding info on. Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 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 17:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarith C Varma[edit]

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

Only ref is to Facebook, not sure if this person fits or not. Has been speedied before. Wgolf (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No notability, only 1 Facebook ref - give us a break. We don't need this do we? Jodosma (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No not really-but since the prod and CSD were deleted it looks like, this was the next best thing!

Wgolf (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I say let it go a few days, say until 1 Sept, and if no one has come up with any objections - delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodosma (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google pulled up that the subject has his own user page at User:Sarith c varma with a bio. Two earlier autobiographical articles have been deleted in 2012 - one was at Sarith C. Varma and was deleted as an expired BLP in 2012; the other at Sarith c varma was speedy deleted before that. A Google search excluding Facebook pulled up no reliable sources whatsoever for his name, not even any articles in the usually effusive Indian press. A Highbeam Archive check pulled up zero results. Mabalu (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and @Wgolf and Mabalu:. CutestPenguin ^discuss 06:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas–Missouri football rivalry[edit]

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

The two teams have met only five times in a 108 year span. Therefor, this is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Daytona 500 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have not performed the WP:BEFORE research required to determine the notability of this game series as a rivalry, but per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The SEC has realigned things so that, starting in the fall of 2014, Missouri will replace South Carolina as Arkansas' "cross-division football opponent". This may or may not result in a significant rivalry forming at some point in the future. However, there is not presently a notable football rivalry. Nor has there been historically. As Nascarking notes, these two teams have only played each other five times. The most recent game was in 2008, and there have been only two games in the past 50 years. The present state of affairs does not warrant a stand-alone rivalry article. The headline on one of the sources cited in the article sums it up pretty well: "Only time will tell if Tigers' new rivalry takes." Any issues concerning the 2014 game can be dealt with adequately at 2014 Arkansas Razorbacks football team and 2014 Missouri Tigers football team. Last but not least, this article does not pass WP:GNG, as I am not finding significant coverage in mainstream media outlets covering the series as a rivalry as opposed to a potential future rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football "rivalry." Cbl62's comment immediately above is four-square on point so I am not going to rehash his logic. I am going to assert that in these CFB rivalry AfDs that a Rule of Common Sense should exist: any game series that is played infrequently is probably not a traditional CFB rivalry. Bottom line: common sense says that any series that has been played five times in 108 years, or twice in the last 50 years, is probably not a rivalry in any meaningful sense of the word. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five times. p b p 04:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Edwards School[edit]

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

Simply stating that a school exists is not establishing notability. Also I couldn't find sources that helps establish notability. Robert4565 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From WP:WPSCH/AG#N "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes." The school's website is included in the article and shows that the school exists. The article history shows that it was much longer but almost all of the content has been deleted. It would be better to restore with refs than to delete this article. Meters (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Several reliable sources showing notability have now been added to the article. Meters (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This AfD was created without the usual template and never transcluded to a daily log. Adding to the August 27 log for its first proper listing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schools are deemed notable & kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of coursse as per the precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as already noted by others. High schools are generally regarded as notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 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 no consensus. A merge discussion can always continue on a talk page, if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wheeler (signalman)[edit]

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

This person is said to have been a signalman in the Royal Navy, a junior NCO roughly equivalent to an able seaman, above an ordinary signalman but below a leading signalman. His only claim to notability seems to be that, aged 20, he appeared as a guest on a BBC radio programme, once, in 1945. Admittedly Desert Island Discs is a rather popular and long-running series - each episode is essentially a long interview, with the added conceit that the guest could be cast away like Robinson Crusoe on a desert island. Almost all of the "castaways" are notable in some other way, but this person was chosen to appear simply because he was a British serviceman on an island somewhere in Europe just after the Second World War. (Perhaps that lack of notability is notable of itself?) There is even an outside possibility that his name was not "Henry Wheeler", or that he was created simply for the programme and did not exist at all. There do not appear to be any independent reliable sources about him, apart from the transcript of the episode in which he appeared, and a book about the series which mentions it. Ferma (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Desert Island Discs. This person was not of sufficient rank to satisfy WP:SOLDIER and appears to only be known for having been a guest on this radio show. The only refs are regarding his appearance on the show, and as nom pointed out it's not enough to demonstrate that he existed at all. It might be somewhat notable within the premise of the radio show, but that's not article-worthy. If you spend a few minutes on Google you'll find a few forums where someone (possibly this article's creator) has gone to some effort to track down more information about Signalman Wheeler, but has turned up nothing besides what's here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having an entire BBC radio programme, broadcast nationally, dedicated to him, is clear evidence of notability; and the BBC is an independent source. Furthermore, we have articles on every other castaway in the history of the programme (apart from a very small number of red links which I'm working my way through; but including a definitely-fictitious character)). Merging into the main DID article would not be sensible, as there have been several hundreds of such castaways and the article cannot mention them all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BBC providing adequate grounds for notability, given the nature of other guests and the nature of the program itself. Also, per WP:RECENTISM, it is not easy to find material on "teh intranetz" about people who had their claim to fame almost 70 years ago, thus I consider it appropriate to give a nod to the indirect evidence of notability that appearing on a nationally-broadcast BBC program(me) implies. (I also note, as an example, we have an article on Lawnchair Larry, an otherwise completely unnotable person who would no doubt have been forgotten once his 15 minutes of fame had ended were it not for "teh intranetz". Certainly, without the internet, it would be hard to find evidence of his feat 70 years later by using traditional hardcopy sources.) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BBC is an independent source. It would be undue weight to merge this article to the series article. (Did you know that we keep an article about a fictional opera? Why not this person who probably was real?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Ivanvector. Doesn't meet WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) or even WP:SOLDIER. This whole Desert Island Discs thingo is a bit of a stretch IMO. Several of the "guests" were marginally notable at best. With respect Gerda, your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The subject fails the WP:SIGCOV part of GNG. It seems very much like WP:BIO1E. EricSerge (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Desert Island Discs per Ivanvector, Peacemaker67 and EricSerge and Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Doesn't meet our basic notability standards per Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I don't understand how WP:RECENTISM (an opinion essay) applies and trumps our notability standards. Does seem very much like WP:BIO1E at best. Parabolooidal (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically refers to sets of a articles (such as those about DID castaways, of which this is one) as a likely exception. To quote: "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.". There have been well over 2970 people (2992 episodes at the time of writing; a very small number of people have appeared twice) featured on Desert Island Discs. We have an article on each (with just a few still to be written; I did another four today). It would be farcical to have an article about all but one (or even all but a handful). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this rationale. What's the point of having a bunch of short articles with little information? Are there nearly 2992 separate articles? It seems to me this fragments the information regarding this series.

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an opinion essay, not a guideline reached by consensus. The page Nutshell states "Nutshell|A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exist according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them."

The BBC website, when searched for Signalman Henry Wheeler states only "Broadcast | 24 Nov 1945, Soldier, Navy Signalman.[3] BBC FAQs says: "The first Desert Island Discs was broadcast in 1942 when most radio programmes were live and generally not recorded. In the decades that followed many programmes were not retained in the archives because the cost of keeping (and storing) the discs on which they were recorded was high."[4] FAQs indicates that starting in 1976 the BBC kept a more complete record, but "some programmes were never archived or may be missing for legal or other reasons." Parabolooidal (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no difficulty finding further sources, which I have added to the article, and so refuted the claim of the nomination. Having separate pages for such topics is sensible because:

It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover"
Having the subject's name as the page title is the natural way to index and search
Readers increasingly access Wikipedia on mobile devices with limited screen space for which large pages are unsuitable
Large articles provoke ennui - see WP:TLDR.

Andrew (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact, one of those references, Magee, also shows that the programme was broadcast not only across the UK, but to mainland Europe, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson added two sources to the three that were in the article when I nominated it for deletion. Both, however, simply mention his name without much more. We are still lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.

At the risk of WP:TLDR, the sources need more scrutiny:

One of the three original sources is a transcript of the radio programme in the BBC's archives; that is, a primary source, and some of the information about Wheeler comes directly out of his own mouth.
The second is the BBC's online record of the radio programme, which is still currently broken ("Apologies - there is currently a technical problem with the Desert Island Discs website"). Even when it is working, I suspect it will only serve to verify the very basic details of the radio programme: that it was indeed broadcast in November 1945, that Signalman Henry Wheeler was the "castaway", and possibly his choices of eight records; but not much about Wheeler himself.
The third is a book about the radio series. This is the only substantial coverage about Wheeler outside the programme, but the book is only semi-detached from the BBC: Sean Magee and the BBC are identified as the authors on p.528. And what is the coverage? A one-page introduction, a list of the records chosen, and then two pages of excerpts from the transcript. So we appear to be counting the transcript at least twice and possibly three times. The book acknowledges that Wheeler is "completely unknown".

Of the two new sources:

One is a book on the British Forces broadcasting network, which notes on page 23 "Roy Plomley's 'Desert Island Discs' came live from the island of Norderney in the North Sea. The castaway was Able Seaman Henry Wheeler and the engineer was Jack Sheard." That is not by any stretch a substantial coverage about Henry Wheeler, but does helpfully identify which island in Europe he was on when the programme was broadcast.
The second is a self-published (Lulu) memoir by Jean Collen about Anne Ziegler and Webster Booth, which simply notes that only one of Ziegler and Booth's duets was chosen "in all the years of the programme, by Signalman Henry Wheeler, a naval rating on 24 November 1945." Again, simply a mention of Wheeler's name, rank, and a date, not substantial coverage at all.

So, are there any other independent and reliable sources with significant coverave about his life before or after the radio programme? Where is the obituary? the ODNB entry? the newspaper coverage? There just isn't any. Yes, he appeared on one radio programme, once, but so what? By contrast, almost every one of the other guests was notable in their own right before they went on the programme (for example, immediately before Wheeler was Deborah Kerr). So Wheeler inherits his notability from the other guests? He is notable because he was otherwise completely unknown?

As to merger, there is not much in this article that needs to be merged: the list article could be improved to include more than just name, date, book, luxury - each castaway's profession and records chosen, for example - but most of the rest of the article would not need to be merged in. I'd also note in passing that as Wheeler was said to be 20 years old in November 1945, and it is not clear when or if he has died, the article could be a BLP.

To go off on another tangent, I see another article of a "castaway" from Desert Island Discs was nominated at AfD recently - Stanley Rubinstein - but that was rightly closed as a keep. Rubinstein is notable, as the sources clearly show, although not as notable as his brother Harold Rubinstein and Harold's sons Michael Rubinstein and Hilary Rubinstein. Ferma (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble finding coverage in newspapers — both contemporary coverage in 1945/6 and more recently, seventy years on. My !vote therefore stands. Further, I note that not a single editor has supported the proposition that the topic be deleted. The issue therefore seems to be settled and I would not have returned to it if I hadn't been pinged - please see WP:DEADHORSE. Andrew (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure how WP:DEADHORSE is relevant. I was under the impression that we were having a discussion. You have not addressed my point that there is only really one source here, which is the transcript of the radio programme. The only other substantial source is largely copied verbatim from the transcript, and the other "new" sources don't include any substantial coverage. I see some further information has been added to the article today, based on birth and death records, but a birth certificate or death notice doesn't establish notability either. Does being on a radio programme really make a person notable?

For the avoidance of doubt, at the moment, I agree with the four other people who have suggested turning this article into a redirect to another article. However, I agree that it would not be sensible to copy the whole of this article over into Desert Island Discs. As I indicated above, I would suggest that the most important details about Henry Wheeler could be added to his line at List of Desert Island Discs episodes (1942–46). Similar information could be added to that list article for the other "castaways", although they are by and large notable as a result of their own achievements, independent of the radio programme, and so a separate article for them is appropriate.

I have looked for some substantial sources on this chap - really, I have! - so if you can point me towards the newspaper reports you have found, and they contain more than a passing mention of Signalman Henry Wheeler (as in the British Forces broadcasting network book, and the self-published memoir), or indeed you can identify any examples of significant coverage in other reliable and independent sources, then I will gladly withdraw. Ferma (talk) 18:50, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bose SoundLink Bluetooth Mobile Speaker II[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dmatteng (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bose_Corporation, and re-direct. New products come and go, and keeping up-to-date links to products will be difficult. I would also remove the intervening articles, e.g. Bose_digital_music_systems, which have little content. Gathering it all under Bose_Corporation will mean that it will be easier to remove outdated products if they are no longer notable. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outdated products that got good coverage probably should be kept. We have several FA articles that are about completely outdated products. Dmatteng (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This all hinges on "got good coverage." Most products from well-known companies (car-makers, electronics companies, fashion houses) get "good coverage" in the press about that type of product when the product is released. That's because there is a large segment of magazines and online news outlets whose "beat" is to cover new products, and thus to attract a particular audience. That is normal. For a product to have notability it needs to have been a game changer. I realize that there is a WP page for a huge number of car models. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. LaMona (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it is according to current WP guidelines. If any topic is notable, it may have its own article. Otherwise, would it be a good idea to merge PowerBook 100 with Apple? The product is outdated and generated coverage in around 1991. Dmatteng (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bose SoundLink per WP:PRODUCT. Wikipedia is not a product guide. I oppose redirecting to the Bose Corporation article itself, but above all this article should not be kept as-is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I would support redirect to Bose Corporation should the Bose SoundLink article get AfD'd. But until that time the most logical target for this article is the article on the entire SoundLink product line. I know WP:PRODUCT says redirect to the company page, but that guideline doesn't seem to anticipate the situation we're faced with: namely, where there's a more specific article than the main company page that discusses a product line, a corporate division, or something similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Bose Corporation per WP:PRODUCT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PRODUCT reserves the possibility of inclusion of products that are not notable on their own to the article of the company that produces them. WP:PRODUCT supports that products that are notable on their own may have their own article. The product demonstrated sufficient notability by the reliable sources presented on the article, it also got Editor's Choice award by PCmag, one of the most reliable sources regarding computer-related products. Dmatteng (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oops I had no idea PCMag & CNET were even there!.... I will admit however the article does need better sources but anywho passes GNG AND PRODUCT. (Thanks Dmatteng for the message.) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:PRODUCT the product should have its own entry as it demonstrated sufficient notability on its own. Dmatteng (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This article is already mentioned on Bose_SoundLink. Merging it with the article would make it unnecessarily long. Same as what I did with an article about a boxer Vasyl Lomachenko - creating an article Orlando Salido vs. Vasyl Lomachenko. Would the fight be not notable, or without sufficient reliable sources, I would create a section within the main article. However, since the fight was mentioned in detail in multiple reliable sources - I wrote an article and linked it to the main article about the boxer. Dmatteng (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then a redirect without merge would be appropriate since this product is sufficiently covered by the SoundLink article. This product is not sufficiently notable to merit a separate article.—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, thus this product is sufficiently notable. Dmatteng (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cnet, Pcmag, and others review this product. It passes the general notability guidelines just fine. Nothing gained by deleting 99% of it, and merging a token sentence here and there to another article. Dream Focus 06:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Multiple reviews satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 10:35, 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 redirect to Prelude to Axanar#Planned feature film. Deor (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Axanar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Star Trek "fan" film crowdfunded by Kickstarter. Coverage in reliable sources is pretty scarce. General practice per NFF is to not create an article until the project has at least begun principal photography, and even then that usually only applies if there is enough RS coverage to qualify the film's notability. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Apparently a VERY successful kickstarter program. With George Takei's support it raised $650,000.00 so far... SIX times what production was hoping. A 20-minute, $80k fan-film Prelude to Axanar screened last month at San Diego's Comicon,[5] and helped push funding to the feature-film level.[6] Considering the involvement of known Star Trek actors, This is already gaining a lot of (fan) coverage. Even if we do not find a home for this article yet, it will surpass WP:NFF (paragraph 3) the moment filming is announced. And Betty, even TOO SOON has its exception. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually no coverage outside of fan sites and social media. There is nothing there that constitutes "significant coverage" in reliable sources, and that still doesn't address the CRYSTAL concerns. If filming started today the coverage wouldn't satisfy our general notability criteria. Film productions collapse all the time after being announced which is why NFF insist on filming commencing. Betty Logan (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Betty.... you underestimate the fervor of a set of Star Trek fans with nearly 3/4 million to spend on their own special pet project, and their not having to answer to big-studio bean-counters... only to other fans as fervent as themselves. And contrary to your supposition, the topic of a film to be called Axanar IS beginning to be covered more-than-trivially in reliable sources: Tech Times, Guardian Liberty 1, Guardian Liberty 2, Inquistr, Indiewire, etc. The topic of this financed planned film meets WP:GNG but, because as filming has not actually begun, guideline and policy suggest it could be spoken of somewhere if not in it's own article. But just you wait.

. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude looks good and professional, it was a decent cast of well known semi-famous support casting and a real story to push the move. Do not Delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.98.2 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2014‎

Response: That could be a possible argument for keeping an article on the prequel short film Prelude to Axanar should it be created, as it does have the secondary coverage to sneak up on WP:GNG... but liking Prelude is not a reason to keep an article on the feature film not-yet-shooting. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (for now) to Prelude to Axanar#Planned feature film where the unmade film Star Trek: Axanar is discussed in context to the prequel... a film which has been released and has coverage to meet WP:NF. I gave the matter some thought and then spent the last few hours creating the redirect target as a much more comprehensive and far better sourced article. Allow recreation once this second film actually begins filming and when WP:NFF (paragraph 3) can be then be met for the now currently unmade Star Trek: Axanar. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a good idea, just need to make sure this page does not get recreated to soon. Blokker 1999 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and I have discussed this at my talk page and I support his "Redirect" proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I initially was for this, and Prelude was really good, and there is a good chance that this will be created in a timely manner. However, I have been so cynical with kickstarter productions being way off their target production dates, that I also agree that this page is not warranted at the moment. Oldag07 (talk) 00:42, 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 redirect to The Tab. Concensus raises concerns about COI and references to material written by Rivlin rather than about him, which undermine any notability claim. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rivlin[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, non e of the sources are about him (most are BY him). Article created by "RyanAtTheTab" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Marangos-Gilks created by same user "RyanAtTheTab" and also co-founder of TABGaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the use of "BA" and "MA" as post-nominal letters seems to indicate autobio DocumentError (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 18:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tab. Articles, I suspect, are created by The Tab's social media manager, thus heavy COI is at play. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Update. The Tab's social media manager has confirmed the connection. My recommendation for the redirect remains as is. – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northglenn High School[edit]

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

non notable school. While high schools are generally notable, this article is entirely based on WP:PRIMARY sources or WP:OR and is written like a brochure about the school. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As notable as most high schools, and the article does include substantial information on alums, etc. I find the list of alums that returned to work somewhat quaint (much like the local newspapers that list who came home for Xmas and had lunch with Mary Jane), but other than that it seems to be a typical high school article. LaMona (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I almost went G11 on it. its completely encyclopedic throughout.
  - "The school's diversity is a unique strength. Northglenn High School also takes great pride in the wealth of clubs, activities and athletics it offers students."
  - "Northglenn High School is full of clubs that are diverse and unique; each one defines itself and what they are about."
  - We are the only school in the district that offers Calculus 3 on our campus
  - If any new idea can be transformed into an entrepreneurial effort, we have business partners who can work with students to make their plans into reality

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that cleanup templates should have been added rather than nominate it for deletion. This is the first major contribution from this editor, so Please do not bite the newcomers is a very relevant policy...it has in bold in its lead "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility" (eg.nominating a page for deletion 10 minutes after its added). As you noted, the topic is noteworthy enough. I removed the list of alums that returned to work there, because it wasn't listed in the source given & at any rate, isn't really noteworthy (also seems like original research). Besides that a couple sentences removed from the lead that read as promotional language and a cleanup of external links fixes the major issues here (also see the copyvio content was removed). Again, I believe in don't bite the newcomers, and left a message on their talk page and suggested to write new articles in the sandbox and submitting for review. AHeneen (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schools are deemed notable & kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas McHugh Carroll[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Give him some time to develop. Quis separabit? 16:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lacking the career to meet WP:ENT or the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the awards to meet WP:ANYBIO. At this time it's simply way TOO SOON for this kid.[7] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab[edit]

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

Non-notable research group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets WP:NSCHOOL. Research group in a notable university, involved in international research activities (see [8] and [9]), which has published multiple peer reviewed papers (here is one, not hard to find others) and has received 3rd party coverage, though I'll note that coverage is somewhat sparse. See [10] and [11]. Much of the article was blanked as unreferenced before this AfD was submitted, see history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpctr8 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, it appears to meet WP:NSCHOOL. I've unblanked the article, it shouldn't have been blanked immediately prior to a deletion discussion. XeroxKleenex (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian School of Economics. Not every research group, even at a major university, is notable, despite how important their research may be. It is true that members of this group have published multiple peer-reviewed papers. Again, that by itself is not a claim to notability. The group itself needs to be discussed in depth in independent reliable sources; as Xpctr8 notes the coverage is sparse. Xpctr8 points to coverage such as co-hosting the 2011 and the 2013 "Symposium on Economic Experiments in Developing Countries"; however, that is exactly the non-coverage that is decried at WP:ORG. WP:NSCHOOL is not applicable, Wikipedia has an article about the school, the Norwegian School of Economics. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J 1982:, do you mean that you believe that it meets WP:NSCHOOL even though the school is the Norwegian School of Economics? or can you point to multiple reliable independent sources that cover it in depth? --Bejnar (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it also meets WP:GNG based on [12](article), [13](release from a different academic organization), and [14] (article). XeroxKleenex (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation listed is a dead link. The second and third do cover the lab, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. The proper article for a school's programmes is the school's article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:54, 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, SpinningSpark 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SSD (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Foley (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence of being notable independent of his band. Possibly worth redirect to SSD (band). Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I agree with Boleyn. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-Yes I believe a redirect be the best given that it just seems to be a band member of a indie band. Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puspa Thapa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern that the subject failed to meet WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines, due to he not having played 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 is in Nepal's squad for 2014 Asian Games and Nepal was recently awarded T20I status. So the days are not so far when Puspa will be playing those matches as well. So I believe it's not important to delete the article right now". This though is speculation per WP:CRYSTALBALL and so the article still fails WP:CRIN. Ytfc23 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ytfc23 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ytfc23 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ytfc23 (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with the Ramnaresh Giri article, this doesn't meet WP:CRIN and we shouldn't indulge WP:CRYSTALBALL. Johnlp (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIN, if he plays at a notable level then he can have an article! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:36, 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. SpinningSpark 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superpoly Fabric[edit]

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

I'd originally speedied this as WP:G11, as much of the article's content was pretty promotional in tone. It was originally nominated as something that had been previously deleted via AfD, but this was speedied before it could run through a fully AfD. (Hence the reason why User:NatGertler declined the original speedy.) After thinking on it a little, I decided that it'd be better to run this through a full, formal AfD to decide if superpoly fabric is ultimately notable enough for its own article. I have to admit that I'm not seeing that much out there that specifically focuses on this particular term. At the prior AfD User:Steve Lux, Jr. argued that this did not expand substantially on Polyester and I'm inclined to agree with him. From what I can see, this appears to be a new term for polyester and doesn't really bring anything substantial to the table. However I figure that it'd be worth bringing this through AfD just in case, that way we can have an official consensus to pull from in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempt at product placement/promotion in the Indian market. Same article was also created as Superpoly which was speedy-deleted G11 on 5 August. No obvious independent information available - might merit a line, or two at the most, at Polyester. - Arjayay (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to make clear (as I think Tokyogirl is already clear on) that my declining the speedy should not be taken in any way as a "keep" vote; it was strictly a procedural objection to the specific speedy criteria that was being cited. It was not an objection even to the general concept of speedying the article; I have not yet made any evaluation on appropriateness of the article or the topic (and may not). --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of being a notabile product or meting WP:GNG. Delete or redirect to Polyester. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBM Engineers[edit]

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

This is a puff piece. Worse yet, the author does not appear to have read WP:PEACOCK before writing it.

CBM Engineers was a consultancy firm. The president was Dr. Joseph Colaco, a notable man.

CBM no longer exists as a discrete company. Around 2011, CBM was merged[15][16] into the Sterling Engineering Group of Companies, based in Houston, Texas.

I did a Google search for [ "sterling engineering group of companies" ]. Google returned just 36 results. Manta.com estimates[17] that Sterling has about 35 employees. LinkedIn[18] says "between 11 and 50" employees.

Despite the tall towers that it's ~~designed~~ contributed structural services to, I have not found any evidence that Sterling meets our inclusion criteria. I doubt that CBM met them either.

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and per our general notability guideline. (Dear non-Wikipedian visitors: Please see WP:42 for a summary of the guideline.)

—Unforgettableid (talk), written 05:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC), edited 01:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. The firm did notable work, and its subsequent fate does not change its notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~Alternatively, redirect to Joseph Colaco.~~ Designing a notable building makes you notable, but providing "structural services", not so much. CBM wasn't the architect of any of the listed buildings and isn't even mentioned on half of the articles. You can't WP:INHERIT notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first reference (in Architect magazine) is inadequate as a reliable source as it merely lists the subject among various consultants and does not provide any substantive discussion. The second reference results in page not found. I see no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:28, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment: how do you invoke Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION for a company that is not in business? Are you saying it was a promotional piece that should have been deleted, but wasn't, so now is just an absurd old promotional ad? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reference to your nomination rationale, I found this Wikipedia:Don't cite WP42 at AfD. I'm neutral on this one. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather pointless essay that only exists because some people don't like it that articles need sources. WP:42 in fact does a decent job of summarizing our verifiability and notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rpclod and Clarityfiend. This company wasn't notable when it was a going concern. It's even less so now. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- defunct company that was not notable during its existence, and is not notable now. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 10 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 the boxing article, no consensus on the basketball article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

F.C. Porto (boxing)[edit]

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

Boxing club with no significant independent coverage or claim of notability. Jakejr (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also lacks significant independent non-routine coverage.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Boxing/Weak keep basketball There are several articles of minor sports affiliates of the larger notable football club most of which do not need their own article. The only reason for existence seems to be template fill. At the most they can be lumped into a single article or even a small section to the main F.C. Porto article. The basketball article is a possible exception.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with the main Porto article. Not every part of a sporting club is notable. Seasider91 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete FC Porto (basketball team) is one of the most notable basketball teams in Portugal and almost every team in the country has it's own page, besides Porto has other sports like handball or roller hockey and each has it's own pages. Tesd52 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that all those other Porto sports with their own pages should not have their own pages. Individually they have not been shown to be notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but if you see other clubs pages like Sporting CP, SL Benfica or Vitória SC for example, they have separate pages aside from the main page for their other sports, this being in Portugal, because the same happens in pages from spanish or turkish clubs. So i ask again for you guys to reconsider about this subject. Tesd52 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles about other FC Porto sports teams don't have the sources required to meet GNG--especially the two I put up. The boxing club's only source is its own web page and the basketball team's source is a report on one game. This seems like WP:NOTINHERITED where these other teams are claiming they're notable because they're connected to the football team. Jakejr (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course there is WP:Other stuff exists. These other clubs may need to be changed also.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the basketball page is an important part of the club heritage. Im a FC Porto fan and since I was little i've seen the basketball team play, there is information about the team in online newspapers or other websites and even about the european competitions that the team participated in Wikipédia so is not very hard to even make a better page. Again I understand your point, but you need to see that there are some sports that belong to a football team that can make their own history and deserve to have a page of their own. Im sorry for being kind of annoying but you need to understand my point of view as fan of the team, cheers. Tesd52 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesd52 I see the basketball page has one reference - it would help if a few more could be added to the page. In that case the Basketball page would probably survive. The boxing page has only one primary reference.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best to make a better page and add more references to it. Thanks for the patience and the advice. Tesd52 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be a separate discussion for the basketball section if notability is the issue here. And I really fail to see why it is considered non-notable. The club has won the national championship and participated in European cup competitions several times (note that the database only goes back to 1992). If the national boxing championships can be verified, I'd consider that section notable enough as well. There's no need to overcrowd the main article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing significant independent coverage for either of these. Jakejr (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me get this straight: A team of such merits is way above the notability threshold. It competed at the highest stage possible in European club basketball, the FIBA Euroleague (though not necessarily successfully...). So what solution would you propose: Merge it to the already extensive main article? Cut unreferenced statements? It can't be about just deleting the whole article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about just adding some reliable third party references to the article. If they are a notable sports team that should not be that difficult.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for what? The bare info of having participated in that competition? This is the kind of trivial info usually not backed up by individual references. I've already included an external link to the FIBA Europe's website, which isn't much but enough to prove at least that. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing I would also vote to delete the basketball article as it now stands. I have no idea what it means to be the club boxing champion of Portugal, so it's hard for me to evaluate the significance of this achievement. However, it is easy for me to evaluate an article with no secondary sources. If someone produces independent sources for the basketball team that are not just routine sports coverage, then the article can be kept. As for the other sports, some of them look to be lacking in good sources, but that's a discussion for another day. I have no objection to the individual sports teams of this club having articles, if they have the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both The boxing article has no independent sources and the basketball's sources are a report on a game and a listing of standings. Neither of these show significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main page already has to much information and if we delete the pages we will have to put that information somewhere else besides F.C. Porto has other sports pages so we will have sports that have their own pages and the basketball and boxing teams won't it doenst make sense. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 16:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this isn't about (common) sense. Every little college team can have articles for each season which consist of nothing else than stats (so much on "routine sports coverage"), while a team which won several national titles and competed at continental level multiple times can be deemed non-notable out of sheer ignorance and bureaucratism. More and more I get the impression that the English wikipedia is just about mirroring the net. I think I'm going to stay away from it. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we stay out of this then people can do whatever they want to the pages, if tomorrow someone decides to erase all of the other F.C. Porto pages can they do it? There so many other pages that don't have and never will have single reference and nobody puts that into a debate, these sports are notable in Portugal and everybody that is associated with the club know them. For example Sporting Clube de Portugal has a lot of pages for their sports that are outdated and I never seen nobody complain, this is just and example because in many clubs the same goes. I will ask again instead of complaining about the pages why don't people work together to improve them? I still think that that's is what Wikipédia is all about, work together to make better articles and pages so that everyone can haver access to better information. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 19:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing The argument for keeping these amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those voting keep simply need to post significant independent coverage. The discussion isn't about their existence, it's about their notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references to the F.C. Porto (boxing) is this enough to keep the page? Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 20:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IP: No, this is about taking our own notability guidelines seriously. There's consensus that, when it comes to sports, having competed at a certain level always means meeting the GNG no matter what. Even an individual player who participated in such competitions (Euroleague, Saporta Cup etc.) would easily pass WP:NBASKETBALL. Now, all of a sudden (also note that this article has existed since 2006, has been edited by several people, is linked to from multiple other articles, and exists in seven other languages), as soon as someone claims that this article isn't consistent with the (very vaguely defined) GNG, that consensus no longer applies? You can keep singing that same old song as often as you want to, but this strange "meets specific guidelines but not the GNG" (though not used explicitly here, that's what it comes down to eventually) I've seen a lot doesn't make sense as long as the former are meant to be a specification of the latter. It's just completely and deliberately disruptive, and I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that no one else trying to find the best solution for these articles.
  - @Tesd52: Great, at least that's something. Judging a club's notability in an individual sport generally is a bit tricky, though. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks but I am a bit sad that no one is trying to improve the pages. I'm doing my best but I can't do everything by myself, I hope that you guys decide to maintain the pages we don't go anywhere if we decide to erase instead of improving. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added references to the two pages and I believe that it's enough for now so that in the future more references and articles can be added to improve it over time. Cheers Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 16:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 6 sources for the boxing article--2 from the FC Porto site, 1 from the FC Porto Museum, 1 blog, 1 video, and 1 article about a fighter who happens to train at FC Porto with just a passing mention of the club. There is still no significant independent coverage of the boxing team itself. I'll admit the basketball article has been improved.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the boxing page, the page you say its from the museum its actually from a Porto newspaper not the club but the city itself, but what do you suggest that i put more in the page ? Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Texto de Museu FC Porto" means the text is from the FC Porto museum regardless of where it appears.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references i believe it is enough. Tesd52 (User talk:Tesd52) 00:10 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think there may be enough sources to show the basketball team is notable, especially since basketball results are team based. However, boxing is an individual sport and I strongly believe the sources given are inadequate to show the boxing club is notable. I see 3 primary sources, 2 blogs, 2 one line mentions (one under a video), and an article about an aspiring boxer which gives a passing mention to the club. Even the non independent and questionably reliable sources are just a list of a couple of fighters (juniors mainly) and their results with no real mention of the boxing club. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete boxing This article does not have the independent reliable sources required by WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request - I suspect the basketball club is notable, but is also suspect reliable sources are in Portuguese language. I have made a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal for some assistance checking Portuguese RSs. Can we hold off on deleting until we see if someone there can help? Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this discussion has boiled down to the notability of the boxing club rather than the basketball team. Frankly, since this has been posted at the deletion discussions for Portugal for 3 weeks, I'd say there has been ample time to come up with significant reliable sources and so far none have been provided for the boxing club. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept the basketball team is notable, but not the boxing team.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & merge both into the parent article. Arguing that the articles should exist because similar articles do is a really bad argument. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:14, 9 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 20:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clown (2007 film)[edit]

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

Film has little to no secondary coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDB isn't a reliable source whatsoever. No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No... IMDB is not a reliable source, but it is suitable to help us expand our searches for released films. And with a title as commmon as "Clown", an expanded search is wexactly what we need. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. While this low-budget film exists and can be watched, it only has coverage in unreliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the original PROD. The lack of reliable sources seems to indicate that WP:GNG is not met. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:34, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SK1, and a large {{trout}} to the nominator for wild misuse of the AfD process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skytrain 500[edit]

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

The reference quoted is incorrect and should read Airship Industries Skyship 500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why not just move the article then? - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have suggested to the author, but it would be a lot more than just move the article.--Petebutt (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a notable topic so moving it and fixing the article seems a better solution. We don't delete articles just because they need improving. - Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Airship Industries Skyship 500 and supplement with information from the Skyship 500 section of the main Airship Industries article. Note that a more extensive article already exists for the later Airship Industries Skyship 600. --Finngall ^talk 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In neutral... I found this image on the National archives and the caption text read "A right rear view of Skytrain 500, a 164-foot British-built airship undergoing tests at the center. The Naval Air Development Center is sponsoring the test project to determine if airships offer a practical military value to the Navy. NATC is evaluating the airship's flying qualities, performance, and vulnerability to radar, 06/23/1983". Thought it was odd how little info there was... even the most obscure aircraft have some info. I make a lot of typo's when creating articles too fast, but in this case, the caption was the root cause. If it can be moved.. great. If not I'll blow it away and make a new one with the correct name. FlugKerl (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I agree with FlugKerl on this one. Sam.gov (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article in progress, move carried out--Petebutt (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 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 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident[edit]

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

A POV fork of Roswell UFO incident giving massive undue weight to fringe conspiracy views. Majority of article is sourced to non-independent sources like "roswellproof.com" and "The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell," that are pretty far out on the fringe. During a previoust AfD in 2008, it was argued that pro-conspiracy sources were reliable as long as they were published. It's 2014. Consensus can change. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor fringe sourcing makes for a big neutrality problem, and gives very undue coverage to a topic which is already (over-)extensively covered in the main Roswell article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be a massive PROFRINGE PROMO piece. As noted by the nom it is also a CONTENTFORK. It violates DUE which as policy trumps any claim to notability, that being doubtful in any case. Far too many of the sources are fringe, which are emphatically not RS. On a side note I am a bit confused by the history of the article. It survived the first AfD but the second directed that it be transwickied to Wikiquotes. Did this ever happen? In any event it is not an encyclopedic article and it needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per violations of fork and fringe. The article is largely built upon unreliable sources reiterating stuff people heard from others, said they heard from others, or thought they heard form others (i.e. violations of WP:REDFLAG are pervasive throughout the article). Exemplifying this is the section titled "Military Police" which has four paragraphs about four people and each contains hearsay:

"Easley’s doctor, Harold Granik, reported Easley spoke about creatures at Roswell on his deathbed."
"According to his wife, Sarah Mounce, her husband told her during his final days in 1976 about guarding Hangar P-3 and seeing the bodies inside."
"Blanche Wahnee, daughter of Capt. Meyers Wahnee, said her father told the family that the Roswell Incident was true in the last year of his life."
"Lovekin added he heard Pres. Eisenhower talking and worrying about how control was slipping out of government hands and being assumed by corporations tasked with studying the situation."

Deathbed confessions? Come on. Location (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence On the one hand, poor sourcing and NPOV issues are not valid reasons to delete an article (see WP:SOFIXIT). And given the vast amount of coverage from reliable sources, there's absolutely no reason to believe that this topic hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, the article is so poorly written, it might be easier to delete it and start over from scratch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be right. If some of the sources are reliable, then the presence of the rest of the sources shouldn't cause the article to get deleted. If somebody knows how to fix up the article to include only the information from the sources in the article which are reliable, then maybe they should blank the article then rewrite it all in one edit, though just blanking it without rewriting it is not permitted according to the nomination template. Feel free to ad the {{rewrite}} template at the top of the article. I think maybe we should follow Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and determine whether deleting Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident would satisfy the original purpose of WP:GNG. I think WP:GNG exists to help enforce Wikipedia:Verifiability as I said in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#More Leniency on Notability Requirements? before it got archived and that the more reliable the sources are, the fewer of them there need to be to for an article to be worth having and any information that appears over and over in lots of the sources is worth keeping in the article and if there's enough of such information, it should be a stand alone article and otherwise, it should be merged into Roswell UFO incident. The only thing that should make the article deleted even if a lot of its information appears over and over in many sources is if there's some reason they could have all made the same mistake, like they write what they learned from another person or another web page that made the same mistake. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that an article that can be fixed should be. But WP:DUE is policy and it trumps WP:N which is a guideline. An article that is not policy compliant is a no no on Wikipedia. That means this article can't be kept in its current form. I will be happy to reconsider my !vote if sufficient improvements are made to remedy the listed issues, though I am unsure how we can fix an unnecessary content fork. But the PROFRINGE and DUE problems have to be resolved. Until then my !vote remains DELETE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should do what's good for Wikipedia's distant future, not what's good for its near future in whether to delete Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. According to Wikipedia's rules, even an article that's as bad for Wikipedia as being unreferenced shouldn't get deleted if it's predicted that it will get references later because otherwise, maybe no one will recreate it by that time once those references are found. Unless some of the information in the article is so harmful that it people should not even be seeing it in the article's history, if there is a way to fix the problem in the article, it should not be deleted but if there isn't a way to fix it, it should get deleted. There's no need to hurry up and delete the article not giving anyone a chance to fix it. People have enough sense not to delete Double circulatory system just because it was marked as unreferenced for 5 years when there is no evidence that those sources don't exist and will never be added to the article. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one option is to trim the article to what appears in reliable secondary sources, and I've taken the in consideration in my !vote. What would remain is material that already appears in the main article. -Location (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The fatal issues with this article is not references, although they are problematic. The major problem is that at present it is little more than a promotional piece for fringe theories, which we do not allow. It is also a POV Content Fork which is a no no. You keep quoting guidelines, which as I have already noted, are trumped by policy. And for the record, five years without sources is unacceptable IMO. It makes a complete mockery of any claim to being an encyclopedia. As for this article, fix it or delete it. I have doubts that it is fixable, but will happily reconsider if major improvements are made. On a side note; why is it even being discussed at all? As far as I can tell the previous AfD directed its removal from the main space. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a pov-fork. If anybody is able to create a policy-compliant article on this topic at some point in the future, I can live with that, but the current article should be deleted. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that the proper due diligence was executed before the WP:CFORK was created. Useful content (if any) should be merged back into the main article. jps (talk) 02:03, 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 speedily deleted by Randykitty per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 18:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citycon[edit]

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

This company lacks notability per WP:CORP and sufficient sources. The creator of the page, User:Citycon shares a name with the article title, which implies that this article was created in a conflict of interest. WP:COI. Upjav (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Upjav (talk) 12:20, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Reset[edit]

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

Unremarkable book by an unremarkable author. Note the creator's username, implying he may be the author or someone who works with him. Probably not G11 though, as the article's tone is not promotional. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and COI. Lugia2453 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just blocked author. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and obvious COI LaMona (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - COI & promo bs that belongs anywhere but here!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 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. Speedily deleted as A7/G11 Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Ghost-Fawwaz Rihani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing found through simple google search, appears to be editor adding an article about himself. Zarcadia (talk) 11:41, 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 20:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mother India[edit]

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

Upcoming documentary failing WP:NFILMS as well as WP:GNG as on now. PROD was contested without providing reason. (Article creator User:Vibhabakshi has WP:COI being producer-director of the film. They have, on numerous occasions also tried to create article on Vibha Bakshi and her husband Vishal Bakshi.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Daughters of Mother India" Vibha Bakshi

Delte for now per failing WP:NF and not having enough quite coverage (yet) to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion if or when notability is established.[19] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:06, 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 Speedy delete as G3 hoax. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Lopez[edit]

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

Hoax. Could find no sources that indicates this person exists. NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writer claims that the subject is sponsored by the elite Primitive Skateboards brand, which is what first alerted me. An addition to the Primitive team is in skateboarding what Michael Jordan's career movements were in basketball. If Lopez was recruited, it would be in the headlines of every major skateboarding publication.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible, unsourced claims and only two references that do not mention Lopez, but rather Paul Rodriguez (skateboarder). The article seems to have been rewritten from Rodriguez'.--Auric talk 11:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Soulparadox (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. No coverage in reliable (or any, for that matter) sources, and the provided sources don't mention him, as explained above. Lugia2453 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Das[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Fellow of a society with a large number of members, recipient of non-notable, small awards. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known (and highly cited) scholar in his field.T R 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article did not have references. I have added some. A bibliography of major works would be a good idea. He has one book that has been cited over 400 times ( ISBN 9780471599753) and is held in over 1100 libraries [20]. I think the article just needs a bit more work, hopefully from someone in the area of physics. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (well cited publications) and #C3 (Fellow APS). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-published, author of several textbooks, and clearly notable. h index seems to be around 30+, although I can't get a real precise number with just google scholar.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - my error. Thanks for your input, Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 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 deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Kaneao[edit]

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

I think that this new article is just a resubmission of an article with the same title that was deleted a couple of years ago if I read the history correctly. I don't know if it is considered 'serious' just because it is 11 minutes old. It just looks like the same user created the same article only with a different user name. bpage (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-admin closure.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lin[edit]

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

Non notable - he is just a chef doing his job Gbawden (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Patrick Lin" is too vague. Needs his full name (i.e. Patrick, Lin ______) to actually locate further sources, especially in Hong Kong, considering his many positions with major Hong Kong hotels like the Excelsior Hotel. No stance before that. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. He's more than "just a chef doing his job." He's one of the top chef's in Canada and has tons of coverage to warrant inclusion per WP:GNG. See the following samples of coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets WP:BASIC upon a review of the sources posted above by User:Tchaliburton. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 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 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Abed[edit]

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

Almost an A7 but here because it has a few refs. NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 07:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is an a7 because there is a claim to significance; it's just the claim to significance doesn't meet the notability guideline for artists. She has some presence online, but not in reliable sources. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 08:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant spamcruftvertisement. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:11, 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. SpinningSpark 22:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington VHF Group[edit]

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

Not sufficient notability for a corp. No references. Only source its own website. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NZART until there is enough WP:V material to justify a break-out article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. No need for merge or redirect, the existing sentence in NZART says it quite well about non-notable branches: Branches of NZART are generally radio clubs and related organisations, and are found across the country. Having a list of non-notable branches would be directory in nature. --Bejnar (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to amateur radio clubs. It would be keepable if enough reliable sourcing could be cited to get it past WP:GNG, certainly, but it's not entitled to keep a poorly sourced Wikipedia article just because it exists — and for added bonus, the content here is swaggering into POV/advertorial territory ("The Wellington VHF Group have established themselves as a forward-thinking, progressive organisation and are regarded as innovative and highly capable in their specialist field"). Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 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, Good afternoon (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Appears to be self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Baillargeon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. There's a professor of art of the same name and a leader of a bus drivers union called Jean-Claude that comes up in coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the link given in the article is dead and a search for his surname at www.international.gc.ca finds nothing. He seems to fail WP:RS and GNG. Gbawden (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had a look on the net and found several other functions he served in, a citation and a publication and added them. I think he is notable enough to have an article. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a very senior public servant, and unlikely to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 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 01:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "sourcing" here is all primary, with not a reliable source in the bunch. Diplomats can be notable if they cite enough sources to pass WP:GNG, but are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they are diplomats. Delete if the sourcing doesn't significnatly improve by close. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 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, Good afternoon (talk) 06:41, 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 17:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine Brewing Company[edit]

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

this is the food equivalent of "something i came up with in my basement". there is not enough independent coverage. we cannot have every nanobrewery get an article just cause they exist. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even remotely notable. The nominator's description of the company is generous. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. No books seem to mention this company, and no news results. Some consumer reviews are online, but since these are published by the consumers themselves, they count as self-published sources and do not establish notability. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 07:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way, way too early for an article about this tiny nanobrewery. It has only been in operation for a few months and has so far achieved no public notice at all. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. artisan cheese shops[edit]

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

a list that amounts to a directory. also, while the two may be mixed, this is 2 different mags chosen lists, thus a copyright violation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At least 3 of these shops (Zingerman's, Cowgirl Creamery, Beecher's Handmade Cheese) are notable and already have articles, so in theory this could be converted into a list of bluelinked notable artisan cheesemakers. (Other potential candidates are at Category:Cheesemakers.) I'm not sure if this is worth the trouble, however. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's worth considering but it should be noted that of the examples given, only one started as a "shop" (Zingerman's) and is still known as a "shop" (in the broad sense). The others are producers or "cheese makers" that happen to have retail shops as an outlet for distribution direct to the public. They are "artisan cheese makers" perhaps, but "artisan cheese shops" isn't really accurate anyway. Perhaps an article along the lines of Artisan cheese-making in the United States or something. But this list is fairly pointless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTN explicitly requires that we show that external publications have constructed similar lists. The sources provided demonstrate the notability of the concept and, as there is no special selection or ranking, there's no copyright problem. The list is not a directory because it does not contain commercial or contact information such as prices or phone numbers. For a further example of a source which demonstrates the notability of the topic, see American Cheeses: The Best Regional, Artisan, and Farmhouse Cheeses, Who Makes Them, and Where to Find Them. Andrew (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I think that might be a reasonable argument for a List of U.S. artisan cheese makers but, as above, most of those listed aren't "shops" or only have "shops" as an addendum to cheese-making operations. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment policy on "not a directory" doesnt require that we provide contact info. we just cant list items which are not individually notable, as shown by references. the whole list has only 2 refs. each item should have a ref showing at least some local notability. Stalwart says it best: pointless list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with St★lwart¹¹¹ that an article on artisan cheesemakers in the US would be grand, but a list of names isn't terribly useful. LaMona (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per stalwart. Not all are shops, and the fact almost all listed are non notable gives little confidence of this list being a notable topic. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kis-My-Ft2国際ファンクラブ FC[edit]

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

Foreign language and seeming nonsense. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deor (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAKBANK[edit]

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

Page written more like an advertorial than informative using few credible and repetitive references. Drnazish (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive coverage in reliable sources. Tone can be fixed by editing. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some advertorial toned sections have been removed, improvements can be made by further editing. Nnayak83 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 05 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but continue working on the tone... and check for possible copyvios. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a Keep: this is well-known bank and a household name in the United Arab Emirates. It makes absolutely no sense to delete this article -- as others have stated here, improvements (such as fixing the tone) and further editing is what's necessary. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DevSlp[edit]

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

This article is a bit technical and not sure if it is notable enough for its own page. Feel it fails WP:NOTFAQ. Perhaps redirect to Serial ATA#SATA revision 3.2 - 16 Gbit/s - 1969 MB/s? Gbawden (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article creator There seems to be three complaints. Too technical? Not notable enough? WP:NOTFAQ? I believe it meets the standards of notability. Specifically it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" the existing Tom's hardware link, and the two new links added show that it meets the standard of notability. I don't think it's too technical. I saw it was a feature of some hard drives I was considering buying, so I wanted to know more. I don't build hard drives, but I can install them. But I think that that is who cares about DevSlp. "feel"ing that it fails NotFaq? I think the nominator would have to be more clear, because I don't see anything in the article that meets any of the notfaq criteria. McKay (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I think it's too early to tell if it will be notable. Yes, it exists, has been published, and has claims, but I don't know if it will get widely adopted. Right now, we mostly have just marketing claims. Current HDDs and SSDs have power-management features already. I really doubt that this product will do anything like what is claimed unless you first specifically "de-tune" the drive's existing power-management, or otherwise fudge the numbers. But I could certainly be wrong. My recommendation: let's wait and see if it becomes significant, based on WP:RS of demonstrated effects and adoption in real life, not just claims of what it "can" do. Actually, I'm okay for leaving the article as is while we wait, but not with linking it to current pages; but since we don't like pages that aren't linked, that amounts to delete for now. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: FWIW, to me DevSleep seems notable enough to have an article of its own – at least, it became part of an official standard. Though, article should be slightly expanded to provide a little better context, so it's clear that DevSleep is part of the SATA revision 3.2 etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:15, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 09:10, 7 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 merge to 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Of note is that Toronto 18 presently redirects to 2006 Ontario terrorism plot, and delete !voter User:Gccwang agreed to this merge target in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ansari[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG. TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete, see also Wikipedia:BIO#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. This likely applies to some of the other articles about individual members of the "Toronto 18" -- for example Fahim Ahmad and Steven Vikash Chand --Gccwang (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toronto 18.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERP, merge content into and redirect to 2006 Ontario terrorism plot (where "Toronto 18" redirects).--Rpclod (talk) 17:15, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Would TheQ Editor and Gccwang and John Pack Lambert concur that merging content into and redirecting to 2006 Ontario terrorism plot (where "Toronto 18" redirects) is appropriate? That may be consistent with their recommendations. I hope to avoid a "no consensus" ruling.--Rpclod (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merging content into 2006 Ontario terrorism plot Gccwang (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to by my internet is down, at least for my laptop. Some virus infected it... I already sent it in to check. don't know how long it's going to take. I'm typing on a really laggy and old computer now. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:52, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Construction Arbitrators[edit]

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

I could not establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG, ORG and (on account of CIMAR) AUTHOR. Plenty of coverage. James500 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of secondary sources are available from GBooks. They do not have to be physically present in our article, as I am sure you are well aware. The Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules are discussed at enormous length in (independent, reliable and secondary) source after source after source. That means that the society satisfies WP:AUTHOR (in particular) easily and by a wide margin. James500 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The greater part of chapter 2 of this book is a commentary on them, they are discussed on 18 separate pages of this book (and the society is explicity discussed on pp 92, 264 and 265) and here is a lengthy bibliography of periodical articles and case law on them. And there is a great deal more where that came from. So there can't really be any doubt that the society satisfies WP:AUTHOR (in particular). James500 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG clearly states that it does not apply to "co-authors", which is what the society are. So that particular guideline clearly isn't relevant to notability based on authorship. James500 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added several sources but there are many more. This is a very notable, highly respected, and important organization.I am One of Many (talk) 04:11, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:34, 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 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Ginn, Sr.[edit]

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

Ginn is a high school football coach with only local coverage. No indication he passes notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NOTABLE with multiple national news coverage. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrison2014: So far, this article has one footnoted source that includes significant coverage in an independent, reliable source, and that source is a newspaper in the locality where the subject lives. Convince me: what other significant coverage are you seeing that qualifies as "multiple national news coverage," keeping in mind that we are looking for significant coverage of Ted Ginn, Sr., not trivial mentions of him that are derivative of his far more famous son, Ted Ginn, Jr.? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought that Ted Ginn, Sr.'s notability might derive from his son, but the long ESPN article on him as well as the CBS News in-depth article convinced me otherwise. There are also several in-depth local articles. Taken together, someone could write a descent article for Ted Ginn, Sr.I am One of Many (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "descent article" could track even more generations of Ginns. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The newly added sources (ESPN July 2012 and CBS November 2008) clearly demonstrate notability separate and apart from that of his son, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:30, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep clearly passes WP:GNG and can stand on notability measures all on his own.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Patlak[edit]

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

Patlak's only claim to fame is running unsuccessfully for a spot in the US congress. It shows how much this was a campaign promotional bio, not only that it reads like one and is largely sourced to campaign promotional material, but the fact that nearly 8 years after the general election, the article lacks any word on the outcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Schematica (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about whether this apparently fringe theory has been covered in reliable sources to an extent that makes it notable enough for an article. Sandstein 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological General Relativity[edit]

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

A complete original research proposal not adequately developed in the requisite journals (ApJ, PRL, etc.) This article looks superficially to be sourced well, but it's actually simply sourced to papers on preprint servers which are not peer-reviewed. Also, clearly a soapbox for creationism. jps (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks for the chance to review my sources and other work. I found that 4 articles I had cited as arxiv-only had in fact been accepted for publication. I looked through them to see what the breakdown of pre-print only versus recognized academic journal or other sources were. Here's what I found:

* Pre-print/ArXiv only 7

* National/International Conference proceedings 3

* Scientific Journals 31

- International Journal of Theoretical Physics 11

- Astrophysical Journal 4

- Astronomy and Astrophysics 3

- Foundations of Physics 2

- Astrophysics and Space Science 2

- American Scientist 1

- Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics 1

- Astronomical Journal 1

- Canadian Journal of Physics 1

- Classical and Quantum Gravity 1

- Contemporary Physics 1

- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soc. 1

- Physics Review 1

- Proceedings of Science 1

- Z. Naturforsch. A. 1

* Books 3

* Video lecture 1

* University/academic web page 6

* Blogs/other web pages 4

I have provided links to the pre-print versions as a courtesy to the reader, rather than links to paywall sites that only show the abstract. As an astronomer, I presume you are used to reading about theories such as MOND in the ApJ. However, the bulk of the work on this theory was published in Carmeli's book and the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. There are a number of publications in other related journals on the subject that were not readily available to me that would very likely serve as alternatives to the arxiv-only versions; however, I can't afford to subscribe to that many pay sites. So I simply cannot agree with your contention that it is "simply sourced to preprint servers which are not peer-reviewed."

As to your contention as a soapbox for creationism: yes, Hartnett is a creationist. However, my understanding is that that Carmeli was an agnostic (though I can't remember where I read that). CGR itself is not a creationist theory. It only becomes a creationist theory in Hartnett's version, where he "applied creationist boundary conditions." Other than including the trigger word "creationist," what makes it a soapbox? If I were to remove all references to creationism from the article, it would be substantially unchanged. However, since Hartnett is the primary researcher continuing Carmeli's work, and since Hartnett is a creationist, it seemed relevant to bring it up.

I noticed that another user deleted the last sentence from the section on Key Features. It originally included this:

Creationist origin theories are generally controversial in the scientific community, particularly in Western culture.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

You have proved my point on that. Many theories have been adopted as creationist even though their creators did not intend them to be so. In fact, the standard cosmological model is the basis for many old-earth creationist theories. I read an article a couple of months ago that looked at the overall distribution of thought (in the U.S., I think) on origins. It was roughly divided into thirds: about a third believed in a naturalistic evolution in a Big Bang universe, another third believed in intelligent design and a young earth creationist origin, and a final third believed in an old earth in a Big Bang universe, but with intelligently directed evolution.

If your contention is that the article should be deleted because it is a creationist theory, then you have implicitly acknowledged it as notable on that count--creationism is a notable theory, and espoused by all major and most minor world religions. But again, CGR is not inherently a creationist theory--it must be modified to make it into one.

If your contention is that it should be deleted because it is a non-standard alternative to the standard cosmological model or Einsteinian general relativity, then you must also delete all articles in that same category: non-standard cosmologies, MOND, tensor-vector-scalar gravity, steady state theory, Brans-Dicke theory, redshift quantization, plasma cosmology, quasi-steady state theory, variable speed of light, bimetric theories, and most or all of the alternatives to general relativity.

Or are you nominating it for deletion simply because you personally do not believe in creationism? If I were to nominate every article for deletion that presented theories with which I disagree, that would make for a long list. But we don't nominate articles for deletion simply because we don't agree with the theories presented therein. Especially theories repeatedly published in recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals. Since reliable, published sources constitute the bulk of the references, this article does not fall into the original research category.

Cheers,

Al'Beroya (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~comment~~ The relevant polices are WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV (WP:WEIGHT), WP:OR and WP:NN from FRINGE, To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.

If this is a theory held by a handful of scientists, and not widely discussed, or widely reported then it does not meet notability, and looks like original research. If it is a theory held by a few people against scientific consensus then that needs to be mentioned, and the size of the coverage on wikipedia should reflect that. [21] this seems to be based upon the work of two scientists, and that article says "While Cosmological relativity is not yet generally accepted,....". In short this seems to be a little supported fringe theory. Martin451 06:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteHaving thought about this I think delete. There are a lack of third party reliable sources on this theory. The theory goes against mainstream physics, e.g. Absolute time and absolute centre of the universe, Hubble's law as an absolute. There are no reliable third party references that talk about this in a objective manner. The work of Hartnett is not objective, it builds on the theory. A Pradhan et al who keeps citing this cites the results in the two (non-springer) papers I looked at, without mentioning the theory. The creationist blogs are not reliable for something like this, they support it because it agrees with their world-view. If this were a notable theory, there would be mainstream scientists disagree with it, or discussing how it fits in with general relativity. The draft that went into mainspace had the line While the theory is neither widely known nor accepted,... this in itself questions the notability of the theory. Martin451 16:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of sources given above by Al'Beroya is a bit of a red herring. Some of the citations are for general concepts, not the specific theory discusses in the article, and are thus irrelevant/misleading. However, GScholar does list 75 citations for "Cosmological Relativity: A New Theory of Cosmology I" and not all of them are self-citations, so there is some amount of work being performed in the context of this theory. (I removed the blanket statements about creationism, since they were (a) irrelevant to the topic and (b) original research. One of the references was in fact a WP clone.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I unfortunately do not see a single article in a decent journal. At west WP:TOOSOON, at worst WP:FRINGE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only mainstream journals are those that don't actually discuss the topic, but which are dragged into the topic by the unreliable ones. Also World Scientific is a vanity publisher who spam researchers looking for submissions (for the academics, do a search for "World Scientific" in your email if you don't already filter the spam). No quality control at all. Second Quantization (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree with some of the strong characterizations of the publishers and journals that have been advanced here: World Scientific is, for the most part, a respectable outfit; the International Journal of Theoretical Physics is published by Springer (although it is far from their flagship journal). That having been said, browsing the Google Scholar hits for "Cosmological General Relativity" certainly leaves the impression of a walled garden. Are there any sources that address this theory in detail, apart from Carmeli, Hartnett and their cronies? I don't see strong evidence of this, and I am leaning towards delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Foundations of Physics is published by Springer Science+Business Media, a highly reputable publisher of academic books and journals. It's chief editor is Gerard 't Hooft, who is a Nobel laureate in physics.[22] Google scholar lists over 5,000 of their articles, and the hits on the first page are all cited in hundreds of other articles.[23] World Scientific jointly runs Imperial College Press with Imperial College,[24] A previous editor may be confusing it with World Science. Moshe Carmeli was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University and President of the Israel Physical Society. John Hartnett is a Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide and has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.

So the theory has been published in reliable sources, even if it has attracted no attention beyond the researchers. However it is taken seriously by some outside the academic world, which might establish its notability. I would like to see evidence that reliable secondary sources mention the theory, even if only when discussing creationists.

TFD (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather misleading to trot out 't Hooft's credentials as the editor in chief of Foundations of Physics. The citations in question were well before 't Hooft took on that responsibility. We must not forget here that this is the journal that published the crank Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, so I think there are very good reasons for questioning this journal's reliability. Also, while "president of the Israel Physical Society" certainly sounds impressive, this society does not seem to be very notable. Their flagship journal, the Bulletin of the Israel Physical Society, does not even have a listed impact factor. The whole thing seems very questionable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmeli's 1996 paper was not publsihed when the journal published Evans' theory. Incidentally Carmeli also co-wrote "Cosmological Relativity: a New Theory of Cosmologly", International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1999), also published by Springer.

Before publishing his theory in 2003, Evans had authored over 100 papers that are listed in Google scholar.[25] The publishers include John Wiley & Sons, Physica, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, the Journal of Physical Chemistry A, the Journal of the Chemical Society - that's just a sample from the first two pages.

The reality is that academic journals do publish papers whose methodology or mathematical calculations are later found to be wrong or whose research has been falsified. When this is uncovered, academic journals then retract their support for publication, as they did in the case of the Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory. Incidentally, the most reputable newspapers also publish stories that turn out to be incorrect, and they publish retractions. These sources are considered accurate not because they never wrong, but because they are usually accorate and errors are detected and retracted.

TFD (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well and good, but in your original post, you asked us to accept that Foundations of Physics is a reliable source because 't Hooft is editor-in-chief. Now you have shifted the goalposts considerably, asking us to believe that Foundations of Physics would judiciously publish corrections to papers that appeared a long time before 't Hooft's tenure there, but with presumably the source of its reliability still being 't Hooft's Nobel pedigree and the recent resurgence of that periodical under his regime. This seems rather implausible to me. Is it not much more likely that no one even noticed the theory in question? A correction of the kind published in the case of ECE would actually confer more notability, not less. But so far I haven't seen any substantially independent treatment of the subject, even published in a questionable place like FoP, despite Carmeli and Hartnett writing screeds about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not transition from a conspiracy theory magazine to a mainstream academic source when the new editor joined. Presumably he joined because it was already mainstream. Even if that were the case, the new editor could denounce all previous articles, and would not have to do it on a case by case basis. He would have done that had there been pervasive problems. The issue that published Moreli[26] also had articles by Philip Pearle (Hamilton College) and Euan Equires (University of Durham), Robert W. Batterman (Ohio State) and Homer White (Pikeville College), A Nariz (Innsbruck University), and others who were qualified in their fields and published in many other academic journals. TFD (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:REDFLAG. We should consider closely that the journal has suffered from problems associated with crank theory promotion. This is a theory which has, for better or worse, been proposed to overthrow a huge amount of standard lore in the scientific community. We are not equipped here at Wikipedia to decide whether this work is crankish or not (you can ask me for my opinion in private, if you care), but its ongoing promotion by a YOUNG EARTH creationist should be a warning just as much as its publication in a journal that has suffered from past humiliation regarding publishing tosh. jps (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hartnett does not argue in his articles that have been published in numerous astronomical and physics journals that the earth is 6,000 years old and in fact acknowledges the universe is billions of years old. And the authors of the theory were not young earth creationists. TFD (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where he acknowledges the age of the universe in his papers. Perhaps you could offer a quote? jps (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The theory has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, including World Scientific, Foundations of Physics, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics,[27]] Frontiers of Fundamental Physics[28] The theory is also briefly discussed in Space, Time, and Spacetime (Springer 2007), p.37.[29]

Two of these sources have been questioned. World Scientific has a similar name to a questionable publisher. Foundations of Physics published the Einstein-Cartan-Evans-Theory, which they later retracted. But there is no question about their current status as a reputable publisher and they continue to publish articles about Cosmological General Relativity.

If the theory is fringe then it meets requirements for inclusion becasue it has been discussed in reliable soruces. That does not mean of course that the theory should be discussed in other articles about cosmology or metaphysics.

TFD (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider sources written by Hartnett and Carmeli as independent sources. Usually we should have sources on a theory besides the people who originated it. If it is fringe, as you say, then it definitely can't be based on the work written by the main proponents. And anyway the sources I have seen look like primary sources rather than secondary sources. A good source would be independent literature reviews discussing the work of Hartnett and Carmeli. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There could be dozens of relativity theories. Therefore we should not wonder that a notable physicist produced yet another relativity theory. String theory isn't physics yet, it is applied mathematics, as Sylvester James Gates, Jr. said in his TTC course. Both string theory and this theory are untested yet. We could remove creationist rant from the article, so its creationist implications are not the issue. If it is considered fringe, it could pass WP:FRIND, and the fact that it is fringe could be spelled out for the reader. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it could pass WP:FRIND since no one has identified any sources that are independent of Hartnett and Carmeli. jps (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See [30]. There is at least a bunch of other authors that repeatedly mention the theory. These include Pradhan, Oliveira, Amirhashchi, etc.T R 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources. The reliable sources listed in the article do not even mention this fringe theory, so there is no way of gauging its notability. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that "Carmeli’s Accelerating Universe is Spatially Flat Without Dark Matter", published in Springer's "International Journal of Theoretical Physics" (2005),[31] as well as dozens of similar articles in academic journals is "Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources"? TFD (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No one seems to think that a paper written by Hartnett qualifies as an independent source except for you. jps (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought he was referring to the publications. TFD (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have definitely seen worse articles. It is well structured and readable. But if it is too fringe, it regrettably has to go, but don't close this matter too fast. YohanN7 (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The paragraph "Carmelian Cosmological Relativity is a serious attempt to deal with many of the most important and challenging unsolved problems in cosmology and astrophysics. Nevertheless, it is not a widely accepted theory. This is likely due to two reasons. First, it presents a serious challenge to the established standard Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (Λ-CDM) Big Bang theory. Secondly, Hartnett has adopted it as the basis for much of his work on a creationist view of the universe, since CGR provides a credible solution to the starlight problem present in Young Earth Creationist cosmologies. Hartnett describes this as applying "creationist boundary conditions" to Carmeli's theory, namely that the universe has a center and an edge." gives enough of a reason to delete. Any theory that says that the universe has an edge in order to justify the introduction of a creator is obviously completely lacking in any semblance of academic rigor. It is a see through attempt to take accepted theory and modify it to allow for a creator, for no reason other than belief. The modification of accepted theory is in no way come upon as a result of observation. This is clearly a fringe theory. AlanS^talk 12:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at the list of articles citing the main paper about Cosmological relativity collected by SPIRES [32], it seems there is a fair body of work on the subject from a group of more or less independent authors taking the theory (somewhat) seriously. There is certainly enough coverage there to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:FRIND. It is certainly not mainstream and quite possibly total BS. However, those are not reason for deletion. Neither is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.TR 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I would consider that list to be "independent authors". It's more like a collection of fringe theory promoters, students, and friends of Carmeli. jps (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not it is nonsensical as a theory, there have been enough publications that it is notable. It doesn't have to be widely accepted, it just has to be noticed. The argument by AlanS is irrelevant--we are not peer-reviewing for a journal. We are not here to judge the correctness of scientific theories. NPOV (and even Scientific POV) means we discuss it properly in context, not that we do not discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where we are capable of writing a good article on the subject since it hasn't been subject to the normal critical review we would require. That's the essence of WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are confusing neutrality and independent sources. The sources meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Independent sources, which is the essay that WP:FRIND ("Independent sources") links to. We do not require that sources are written by people who are neutral about subjects, and the publications I cited are all neutral on the topic. In fact most reliable scholarly sources are not neutral, as their authors typically have opinions on the subjects about which they write. TFD (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - From what I read, all the authors being cited are either students or collaborators. That is not independence. jps (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Independent sources" does not mean that the authors do not have opinions. It means that the publisher has no financial interest in the subject. For example a website owned by the oil industry would not be independent in the subject of climate change because the oil industry has a financial industry in creating doubt. It does not mean that the authors of sources used cannot have an opinion on the subject. If you question that statement could you please provide a link to a policy or guideline that supports your interpretation. TFD (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's not just about financial interest, obviously. It's about whether or not there is a direct connection between the sources. For example, we wouldn't accept a mother writing about her son as an "independent source" even if their finances were separate. jps (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Under the law, a mother and son are deemed not to be dealing at arms length, so the editor of the New York Times would not assign a woman reporter to write about her son. On the other hand a section in an astronomy textbook explaining a theory developed by the author would be a reliable source for that theory. Carmeli, Hartnett et al. do not own Springer and Springer does not promote their specific theories. It is not the same as using a book published by the Church of Scientology as a source for the Church. If you disagree then you can ask that Springer publications no longer be accepted as reliable sources. But your interpretation of policy is wrong. Now please find the wording in policy or guidlines that supports your interpretation. TFD (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishers are not the source. Authors are the source. It's not the identity of the publishers that determines independence; rather it's the identities of the authors themselves. As all the authors mentioned above are either close collaborators or students with Carmeli, we would not say that the idea has received the requisite outside review necessary for encyclopedic (tertiary) treatment. jps (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the policy says and again I ask you to read "Independent sources", which you introduced to the discussion, as well as the linked essay, "Independent sources". "An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic.... Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).... Independent sources are not necessarily "neutral" in the sense of being even-handed. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and he or she may strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status, but if the author gains no personal benefit from these children learning how to read, then the publication is an independent source on the topic."

Incidentally, if publishers are not the source, then how do you treat news items that are not signed by a reporter? How do you know that the reporter on U.S. politics is not a Democrat or Republican and therefore too unindependent to write about it?

TFD (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Creation-Evolution Controversy". Retrieved 17 August 2014.
^ "Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?". Retrieved 17 August 2014.
^ "Creationism and Creation Science". Retrieved 17 August 2014.
^ "Creationism and Creation Science". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

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

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

The result was '. Was deleted A7 during the discussion. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani Ajabde Punwar Singh[edit]

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

Not sure what this is suppose to be-this isn't a BLP as it seems like the person is dead. But I am unsure about what to say for it so either a expert is needed or delete it. Wgolf (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7, as "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well I'm not even sure if this is a living person based off of how this article is. Wgolf (talk) 19:17, 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. Wifione ^Message 16:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Simona Halep tennis season[edit]

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

Fails tennis notability guidelines. Only players who have won a grand slam event are entitled to a player season article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Article types and recommended practices Wolbo (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strikes me as premature for an individual season article. Halep has certainly started out strong and is currently ranked #2 in the world, but she has yet to win a major. There is certainly sufficient coverage for Simona Halep, and such an article already exists. However, for a "2014 season" to be created on a stand-alone basis, there needs to be a strong showing that there has been significant coverage of her "2014 season" as a season. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the comments above. MasterMind5991 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Project Tennis notability guidelines. Must win a Major title first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 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. Consensus is clear enough; no point in relisting again DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Can (charity)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No reliable sources listed or found on web search. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 11:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 19:26, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the Land of Volcanos[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. If found non-notable, it's probably worth a rediredct to artist. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 19:26, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 16:55, 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 17:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Certification Centre for Automotive Products[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Flat Out let's discuss it 04:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 19:29, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 16:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to establish the company's notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Velraj[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG. Its just an indiscriminate list of films. No reliable sources commenting on third party notability. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 19:28, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:52, 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. Without prejudice for an early recreation, if reliable sources are available. Wifione ^Message 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Framework One[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Framework One (FW/1) is one of the most popular MVC frameworks for CFML (ColdFusion Markup Language) with nearly 700 developers on the mailing list. It seems that for notability, the requirement is to find references from places other than the author (me) or the project. Is that correct? Would adding links to talks about FW/1 given at conferences around the world, and blog postings, by other developers contribute to notability? Seancorfield (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Seancorfield, sources need to meet WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability - I would say blogs aren't generally accepted. The sources would need to show that it meets WP:NOTABILITY, in particular WP:ORG and WP:GNG. For further advice, you could post at WP:Wikiproject Notability asking for assistance. We generally discourage people from writing about themselves and their products, but there's no outright ban. Good luck. Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'd say most of the CFML frameworks would fail the notability criteria then since outside of blogs and conference talks I don't think any of them get discussed or reviewed (and most of the CFML frameworks have pages on Wikipedia, e.g., ColdBox_Platform and ColdFusion_on_Wheels) - and I wouldn't consider Wikipedia the right place to look for information about any of them to be honest. I let the FW/1 community know about the potential deletion of the page and it's up to them whether they update the content with notable sources at this point. Thank you for the clarification Seancorfield (talk) 16:43, 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, Sandstein 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not enough uptake yet to garner coverage in third-party sources. No prejudice wrt recreating once it has picked up some notoriety. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:55, 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. Wifione ^Message 16:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Sky[edit]

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

I can't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it does but the page just doesn't contain information on that as yet Matt.Sharp98 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:40, 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 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that they meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 22:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 5 sources, 3 of which are either their own Facebook page, or their own web site. Other 2 support the fact that they do exist, but little more: they appeared with another band on one night, and at the same room in Edinburgh the next year as one band of several in a festival. Notability thus seems local only. Little I can find in the way of substantive sources beyond what is given. Crow^Talk 18:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:52, 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. Wifione ^Message 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work Family Resource Center[edit]

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

local organization with no notability. Bizjournals and youtube are not acceptable sources, and I see nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources. Does not seem to meet notability criteria. Schematica (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:42, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per DGG and Schematica fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. Wifione ^Message 16:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed Music[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable record label, filled with claims of grandeur, supported by vacuous (phony) sources. The only real contributors are clearly related WP:SPA editors with a strong WP:COI.

{{findsources}} turns up tons of hits, but almost all promotional with others containing a few passing references related to (routine) coverage of appearances of the bands. I suspect we need to file similar AFDs for the articles about the WP:NN groups signed to the label that these SPAs have been creating. The Dissident Aggressor 01:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At this point, shouldn't this just be closed as Delete with no objections? The Dissident Aggressor 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and clearly promotional and lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 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) 07:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central and North Florida Minority Supplier Development Council (CNFMSDC)[edit]

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

promotional article for relatively minor organization. No refs substantial enough for notability. almost a g11 DGG ( talk ) 13:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have nominated this myself. There's just nothing out there by way of sources; a few passing mentions (under its old name, the Florida Minority Supplier Development Council) in books and expo listings, but nothing even close to substantial coverage that I could see. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 19:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 19:41, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per DGG and Yunshui.Article is clearly promotional and fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 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 Born This Way. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS first clause itself. There is no independent coverage outside album reviews and artist's own mouth. Article should be deleted, or at best kept as a plausible redirect to Born This Way, the parent album. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born This Way per nomination. One-sentence passing mention in reliable sources doesn't contribute to notability.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Born This Way as this fails WP:NSONGS. One might think this is a plausible search term, but it definitely doesn't warrant a separate article either way. I don't know if people are really looking for this song when searching for the term "Bloody Mary", but one never really knows. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no notability, a redirect seems unjustified since almost anyone searching for "Bloody Mary" would want to be going elsewhere and who, realistically, is ever going to search for "Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song)" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born This Way. Definitely a plausible search term, but its only justification under WP:NSONGS is that it charted at #1 in the Lebanon ("Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts"). Gnu andrew (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Tiptoethrutheminefield MarlovianPlough (talk) 03:08, 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 02:21, 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 04:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born This Way - As noted above it is a search term .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born This Way. No seperate article is needed because it fails WP:NSONGS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment I have found some third-party sources (MTV News, NME, PopCrush PopDust) which could somehow help develop the article. Simon (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those, HĐ, only NME gives sufficient coverage independent of album. MTV is from the words of a producer, which is not third-party. PopCrush and PopDust are also very unreliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly the NME coverage is for Born This Way: The Remix not exactly about the original song. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Khan[edit]

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

As best I can tell Alif Khan's claim to fame is that he was one of 66 people interviewed by a news organization that then wrote up his story. That just does not seem to be the kind of stuff that notability is made ofJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alif Khan has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources satisfying WP:BASIC. In addition to the McClatchy News Service pieces already in the article he was a major focus of a longform BBC televison piece (transcript) and has also received significant coverage in several books exploring both the role of journalism Journalism: Critical Issues and the costs of counterterrorism policy The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "As best I can tell" is either disingenuous or fails WP:CIR. Complying with BEFORE requires research that indicates that in fact, all the other Gitmo detainee articles lacked only a single third-party source, as per WP:WHYN #4. Arguably, and I will continue to argue this strenuously, only a crooked or inept wikilawyer would require a secondary source to determine whether detention at Gitmo was Original Research; everyone knows it happened, and who it happened to, and who made it happen. Nonetheless, even such weaseling is firmly restrained here, by the extensive work of McClatchy and the BBC. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard N. Cabela[edit]

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

Mhomolka (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)I am the SEO Manager for Cabelas's and have been notified by our social media group that there is information surrounding the death of our founder. We have seen editors such as: Carbone15, Scalhotrod that have put that he "committed suicide" which is 100% false and disrespectful. We would like to have the page removed completely as this is not good for the family who just lost a loved one less than 6 months ago.Mhomolka (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was originally created with just the text above, with no template and no transclusion to a daily log page, so it never got any traffic. The creation of this page and a few edits to the page itself are the above user's only edits to date. The transclusion to the August 12 log marks its first proper listing. I'm completing the AfD nomination as a courtesy, but the article looks like an obvious keep to me. --Finngall ^talk 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - lots of coverage, clearly notable. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 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 04:32, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is clearly notable given the multiple coverage in reliable sources including such gold standard indicia of notability as a New York Times news obituary. The nomination doesn't make any compelling argument for overriding these findings; any unsourced or incorrect information and any vandalism of the article can be (and has been) dealt with in the usual way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plenty of coverage –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see significant coverage in third party reliable sources. The reasons provided by the nominator are vague. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:21, 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. Per BIODEL. Wifione ^Message 16:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Monster[edit]

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

No multiple independent reliable sources for a standalone musician BLP. WP:TOOSOON is also valid. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON Asdklf; (talk) 20:48, 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. Per BIODEL. Wifione ^Message 16:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Nikolaievna Dostal-Oruç[edit]

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

The person is not notable. There are no references in the article which confirm the notability; the only semi-reiable source is the last (unnamed) reference which is about her mother (who is notable), not about her. Additionally, the talk page of the article suggests this can be a hoax. Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I discussed the issue with Ghirlandajo before nominating it for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian article was deleted in 2011 on the grounds of non-notability. I have not seen reliable sources proving that such a person really exists, but even if she does, I see nothing notable about her. Delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 19:40, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 16:43, 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. Wifione ^Message 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Toya Hankins[edit]

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

Marginally notable writer, fails WP:AUTHOR. Scant coverage, sourced largely to mentions, user-submitted content, and blog book reviews. Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the listed references are very weak. One should exclude references from GoodReads and other crowd-sourced sites. The first cite doesn't even mention her, so that should go. The first book is self-published (I added an ISBN); the second is from what looks like a struggling new small publisher, Resolute Publishing and does not even have an ISBN. And many of the edits are from a WP:SPA. I can't see a way to save this one. LaMona (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 19:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 19:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete her two published books have respectively 6 and zero holding libraries in worldcat. Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centuric[edit]

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

This company doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Google results are just things like Facebook, directories, press releases, that sort of thing. Google Books and News turned up nothing. The "sources" on the article itself aren't any good. There are a couple of press releases, including one that the citing claims is an article from the Boston Globe, a (dead) link to a website of an organization they helped found, a local conference's page noting that the CEO was invited to speak, with a small blurb that was clearly written by the company itself ("We continually align our products and services..."), a list of 250 companies that some news website feels "are on the cutting edge of technology" with no detail about any of them, and which doesn't even include the full list anyway, which means the cite doesn't actually mention the company, a blogpost, and a couple of duplicates. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:56, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say delete based on notability guidelines, really. In terms of independent sources the company might as well not exist. This appears to be the tech version of a local roofing company. I'll freely admit I've been off Wikipedia for some time and might have missed out on some bureaucracy, but if a general google search is trying to link the end of "percent" and "uric acid" to give me results, the company isn't likely to be notable. Pete Shan osky 03:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this on facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete top 25 in a particular state is not notability; a listing for "up-and-coming" means not yet notable. " DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable as noted by DGG. TOOSOON Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:45, 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.

[creation_evolution-1] "Creation-Evolution Controversy". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

[science_creationism-2] "Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

[skepdic-3] "Creationism and Creation Science". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

[clark_creation-4] "Creationism and Creation Science". Retrieved 17 August 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]