Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 August	4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investments in Rio de Janeiro (2014-2016)[edit]

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

advertising. User Systema Firjan promoting the works of Systema Firjan The Banner talk 20:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopaedic and lacking independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. As above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. At best WP:PROMOTION with little or no encyclopedia value. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources and content to support a stand-alone page. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the report was crystal ball, the article is indiscriminate, and it has no coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:06, 10 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIRJAN System[edit]

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

advertising. user Systema Firjan promoting Firjan System The Banner talk 20:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT because it is written like the "About Us" page of a company website. I am not speaking about minor violations that can be fixed by spending 60 hours rewriting the whole article. This article violates Wikipedia's mission just as a copy of a spam email about Canadian Medicine or Fake Viagra does. Fleet Command (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:20, 10 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 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Treason[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Claimed award was for the Berkeley Film Fest, but it was essentially an unscreened honorable mention. Looks like an attempt to promote the subject of a non-notable film through a Wikipedia article, mostly. jps (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nominator. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (films). WP:SOAPBOX is a concern: This and other articles associated with it (e.g. William Lewis (film director), Joyce Riley --> American Gulf War Veterans Association, Doug Rokke --> Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism, Dave vonKleist, and 911: In Plane Site) form a walled garden of articles that are either poorly or dubiously sourced. Location (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-notable, can find nothing other than mentions on bug-eyed conspiracy theorist websites & the like. The claimed award is not particularly impressive.TheLongTone (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:(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)

Writer:(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)

Delete While this film exists and might stir up anxieties, it has not received coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NF, no significant coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MarlovianPlough (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; when controversial topics are short on notability, it becomes impossible for us to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly elucidate this assertion of controversial articles becoming NPOV due to lack of notability. Anarchangel (talk) 01:59, 11 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. After three relistings the consensus to delete is fairly clear. Anyone who wants to write an actual article on the topic would no doubt find this mostly empty "template" of little use, and it's certainly of little use to our readers. I'll userfy it for anyone who wants to work on it, though. Deor (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia at the IAAF World Championships[edit]

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

Someone started this article but didn't finish. Tagged as an orphan since 2009 - I don't see the point of having this article if there isn't anything in it Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It barely makes it past A3 as it contains a little bit of unreferenced content. This is essentially the frame for an article with no useful content in the frame. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No useful content.--Rpclod (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The subject is notable even if the article is incomplete. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally not a bad idea but there is no context, so delete. Kante4 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted as at the moment there's good arguments for keep and delete so still merits adiscussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, no content, pointless topic. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sufficient unto IAAF World Championships is the work therein, no content not needed. --Bejnar (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Australia at the World Championships in Athletics NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 00:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Whpq MarlovianPlough (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article does not contain sufficient reliable references, independent of download providers or the software provider itself. Its notability has been consistently questioned in this and previous AFD's and the situation has changed little in that time. Seddon ^talk 19:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BS.Player[edit]

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

This was deleted at the first AfD per relevant policies and the deletion was upheld not once but twice at deletion review. Perhaps a year or so later, the original creator recreated it. However, no indication that this software satisfies relevant notability policies. For example, the "conduit" reference is merely published company press release. Several sources are not independent sources. Delete and salt. I decided against a G4 nomination due to the extended period of time this incarnation of the article has existed. Safiel (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Downloads sites are not independent, the book lacks depth of coverage, and the rest of sources are not RS. My search didn't bring any usable sources either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it is already salted. Given that this article was already userfied twice upon request, I believe the best thing to do is to move without redirect BS.Player to Draft:BS.Player and move-protect the draft. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was salted on what basis? 2 Afds with minimal participation? Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and rightfully so: these 2 AfDs were quite decisive, and neither encyclopedic article content nor reliable sources were presented to date. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The last Afd was 2 Keep and 2 Delete votes, how is that decisive? Szzuk (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: last AfD was decisive because it revealed lack of arguments behind "keep" rationales. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you weight the !votes? Do you agree that a WP:NOQUORUM was within the scope of a reasonable close? Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Definitely not: there were 5 editors involved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet there were some extremely weak delete !votes. Unscintillating (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        These "extremely weak delete !votes" had a common very strong point: notability was not established. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Those !votes didn't even report the minimal work called for by WP:BEFORE D1. What is your basis for saying that they were "strong"? Unscintillating (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody is required to report their performing of WP:BEFORE. My basis for "strong" is that these !votes used bullet-proof argument: the subject does not pass requirements of WP:GNG. It is a valid policy-based !vote, unlike the WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITEXISTS clutter from "keep" !votes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Now, now, Unscintillating. Discussing the closing admin is the worst thing to do in an AfD. Things like WP:BEFORE, !vote counting, etc. are minor points. When the article is that bad, there is little chance of it having survived ever. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is so bad, why are you having to defend !votes that failed to report the minimum searches specified by WP:BEFORE D1? Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to see the point: nobody defends those !votes – there is no need to defend perfectly reasonable !votes. You are trying to discredit them by making up stuff, but nevertheless we continue to assume good faith and patiently explain you that you are mistaken. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we are discussing here is Szzuk's point that the last AfD had minimal participation. You've yet to agree that none of the delete !votes reported the minimal searches specified by WP:BEFORE D1. There would be more consensus to build about the strength of those delete !votes, but that part of the conversation awaits your agreement on the initial point. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt:. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an advertisement for an obscure computer program, not an article. If it was respawned, delete again. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing the deletion problem here. Multiple reviews in multiple languages define wp:notability. Problems with inappropriate information in the article are fixable with editing. Nominator did not mention that there are eleven inter-language Wikipedia articles. For reasons of which I'm not aware, Wikipedia seems to have a bias against European software developers. Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should actually click on the so-called "reviews" and read them. CNET Download.com especially, does not fit the bill for a reliable source. The so-called reviewer just re-hashes the vendors' description. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the reviews. The German one and the French one are perfectly acceptable, it appears you didn't read them...Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this bare translation of official website into German and an overly short description in French which does not allow to disambiguate this software from Windows Media Player? What is unacceptable then? P.S.: I doubt that Editions ENI is an acceptable publisher actually; from their site I get an impression that they don't perform actual editorial oversight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:47, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are underwhelming: one 404 error, one list of K-Lite Mega Codec features (not the subject), one admitted press release, 2 from the subject's website, 2 reviews from 2008, 1 review from 2009, and one copy of one of the 2008 reviews. This is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What defines sufficiency? I thought sufficiency was two good articles. Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A source with a 404 error is still a source, just harder to find. Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence in the !vote that the editor has looked for sources. Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NTEMP, wp:notability is not temporary. A source from 2008 has the same standing as a source from 2014. Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I used to use this program 10+ years ago, it used to be very popular. Szzuk (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not enough in the way of WP:RS to establish notability. That said, I appreciate the passion of the keep !votes. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviews added to the article are cursory at best. They are not enough to be significant coverage. And WP:NOTADVERT is a higher order policy that takes precedence over notability. When it fails, discussing notability is moot. It is gaming the system to write an article that looks completely like an advertisement or product page, then add a reception section containing some so-called "reviews" (yet another advertisement tactic) to prevent the article from deletion by reciting WP:NTEMP. Notable subjects have impact. This program does not. Fleet Command (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs provided are download sites and very brief reviews/PR, as noted above. Dialectric (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Online software encyclopaedia Softpedia has reviewed this product before, see [1] and [2].--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We are aware of what you are showing and that is not an in-depth review. Softpedia writes in-depth reviews in separate review pages. This is just a cursory review that Softpedia employees write as part of their job. See Zoner Photo Studio for example, that has both kind. In addition, even if it was in-depth, GNG requires more than just one coverage.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the first source listed says, "BS.Player has been around for longer than we can remember and while it’s got major competitors, it managed to survive somehow in such a cut-throat market." That is exactly the kind of in-depthness that we are looking from a reviewer to satisfy WP:GNG. By your own admission, this was written by a paid staffer, so is professionally written. Unscintillating (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. This "review" barely describes the subject. "In-depthness" that we are looking for is enough information to at least identify the subject, and this "review" would be still valid if "BS.Player" was replaced with name of any other video player. But even if we disregard the depth of coverage, these two reviews are from the same source – Softpedia. Furthermore, Softpedia hosts downloads of this player and earns by providing such "review" pages with ads, so it is nowhere close to being independent from subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is this sentence from the 2nd source, "...BS.Player...is one of the big guys of this software category." Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your position that media that sell ads are not WP:RS? Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's my position that media who earn from hosting downloads and describing them are not intedependent. Unscintillating, please, stop this WP:IDONTHEARYOU thing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community isn't saying anything to unscintillating, you are. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment.

Apparently, every editor in this discussion (with exception of you and unscintillating, I suppose) does not belong to the community according to your opinion. Or maybe you just did not bother reading discussion?
The community as whole communicates this simple idea in WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:IMPACT and numerous other documents.

But you can't be bothered with reading, can you? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise policy documents could talk!Szzuk (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very productive discussion... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- most of the reviews are from download sites that offer this software, thus failing the "independence" requirement. The amount of reliable, independent sourcing is not sufficient IMO to justify this article. I furthermore agree with User:FleetCommand that bombarding a blatantly promotional article with cursory run-of-the-mill reviewlets to evade deletion under WP:SPAM is just gaming the system and should be discouraged. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 11 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 August 15. The result of the deletion review was merge.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think I need to say something to Dcs002 on their argument that policy does not mandate deletion of an article for which notability has not been proven. Indeed it doesn't, but once an article has been brought to AfD evidence of notability is then required to be presented. Dcs002 further argues that this procedure is a result of "habit" rather than policy. The misunderstanding here, I think, is that policy on Wikipedia is a result of consensus in practice. In other words, the policy is a summary of practice, rather than practice being determined by policy. There is no doubt in my mind that if this issue was put to an RfC to clarify policy the result would overwhelmingly be that deletion must follow a failure to show notability at an AfD. But in any case, such an exercise is not necessary, the principle is already in the deletion policy: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I am therefore inclined to give less weight to Dcs002's argument and the result would have been "delete" were it not for the "keep" arguments presented by others. SpinningSpark 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of Onomastics[edit]

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

Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge with Russian Language Institute. (Changed on July 31 - see Mark viking's comments below, though I think it merits more than a mention in that page, which itself needs to be expanded IMO.) This is the most widely held journal of onomastics in the Russian language among the four listed in Worldcat. It is also indexed in the Index Copernicus. That seems to satisfy criterion #1 (as well as caveat #2 regarding stub status) in WP:NJournals. (Though the journal's homepage shows it indexed in EBSCO, it is not as of today in the EBSCO list.) But onomastics seems to be a pretty small field, as there are only 51 total onomastics journals listed in Worldcat in any language. Still, it appears to be a legitimate, peer-reviewed academic journal. It has a typical submission process and ethics standard. I do not have access to journals anymore since I left my last research job, so I can't provide any RS other than the free indexing information, but I think there is enough available that it should be kept as a stub in need of a lot of help. I'd think someone with access to the journals could easily find RS that reference the journal or its content. I say fix it, don't delete it. Dcs002 (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat listings are unreliable and their use here is not generally accepted. Index Copernicus is useless: any publisher who wants can enter its journals into the database (and most serious publishers don't bother, so you won't find journals like Nature or Science in there). "Fix it, don't delete it" is fine, but this has been around for a long time and still nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability. So unless you can find some sources, your !vote above does not adequately address the issue. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I followed the guidelines as precisely as I could (given in WP:NJournals and others - more below), and that is what led me to Worldcat - it's right there in WP:NJournals.

Saying "nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability" is very different from saying no one has actually done so, and I think the latter is the case here. It is a world apart from saying the subject is not notable. I see no evidence in it's brief edit history or talk page that anyone has tried very hard or had the expertise in the field to source its notability. (I see you have participated though, and I don't mean to dismiss your work on the article.) Have any linguists participated? Anyone who has access to this actual journal? All over the WP guidelines I see constant repetition of the notion that articles that look like they could be notable should not be deleted, but fixed or tagged as stubs or whatever. Also that alternatives to deletion are much preferable to deletion. Notability has to do with notability in the world, not popularity among WP editors, so the fact that people in this field or with this interest haven't come by to fix this article in 3 1/2 years is not a reason to delete it. It needs help and it's gonna take a long time before it gets it. There is no expiration date, nor compelling reason to get rid of something because it has had so little activity.

I'm a (retired) neuroscientist (you can tell because I have time to write such lengthy comments), and I have no real experience with liberal arts journals or indices. I lived on Index Medicus and then Medline/PubMed. But I was following the guidelines as precisely as I could (given in WP:NJournals, which says that if any one of three criteria is "substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article." The first criterion says "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Then #6 under Notes and examples names Worldcat specifically, saying the following:

For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat. Other sources can be found on the book sources page, at the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject. (My emphasis. Of the four Russian language onomastics journals, this one is by far the most widespread, and the only one available in more than print format, according to Worldcat.)

That is why I used Worldcat. It's in the guidelines, so I assumed I was on safe footing. Now under the WP: Deletion Policy, WP:DEL-REASON, the following is the closest pertinent reason given in the policy that would apply to this article: "7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." Have there been thorough attempts over the years? I didn't see any evidence of that. This policy does not list old articles that have not yet been improved as a reason for deletion. So to me it looks like, according to WP: Deletion Policy, the appropriate remedy is not deletion, but the tagging recommended on that page for the reasons listed:

{{stub}} for a short article
{{refimprove}} for lack of verifiability

The WP: Deletion Policy page says these tags "are intended to warn the readers and to allow interested editors to easily locate and fix the problems," and "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." IMO, this journal shows all the signs of notability if someone with better access than I have gathered the RS necessary. IMO, that is what stub class is for, as well as the {{refimprove}} tag.

Following this process, and for the reasons given (and having no personal interest in this field or in the outcome), I still see "Keep" as the appropriate !vote for me, keep and tag. (I'm not the guy to fixit because I have pretty much exhausted my knowledge and resources on the topic.) Was my process a bit off somehow? Is there a reason you think a more "selective database" is necessary when the consensus-derived deletion policy suggests Worldcat is adequate? (I am also very new to these AFD discussions.) Unless there are circumstances that amplify the urgency of deletion beyond what is stated in the recommended guidelines and policies, I see no objective basis for deleting any article. Because something can be deleted doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notability is not demonstrated clearly here, granted, but IMO there is a real likelihood that it could be established. All the signs are there. It costs nothing to let an article sit as a stub or start class with a tag. To me, deleting an article is a grave undertaking. I don't like to erase things without a compelling reason. This article suffers from neglect, not a fundamental lack of notability. Dcs002 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Index Copernicus evaluates journals for quality See their methodology here: [3], and of their 120+ listed linguistics journals, it ranks Problems of Onomastics at #11, with a score of 6.85. ("Index Copernicus Value", ICV, basis. For comparison, #1 is 9.00, #30 is 6.16.) Not too shabby it seems for a journal that is penalized for not being in the English language and for having only 2 issues per year. Currently, out of their entire list of 10,409 journals, from all disciplines, Problems of Onomastics is in a 10-way tie for being ranked 440th. Really, I think this article just needs some TLC at some point. Dcs002 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhen I say that "nobody has been able to come up with any evidence of notability", that really also means that nobody has actually done so... It is logically impossible to prove that something is not notable, but that is not necessary and turning things on their head: in order for something to be included in WP, we have to prove that it is notable. If that cannot be shown, an article is deleted, if not, we could do away with PROD and AFD. Now WorldCat: yes, it's in NJournals, but its use is somewhat controversial. For instance, when I click the OCLC or ISSN links in the infobox in the article, WorldCat does not indicate a single library holding this journal, not even when I specifically request all Russian libraries holding it. So if you cannot "fixit", and I cannot find anything supporting notability, what is the policy-based reason to keep this? Just a hunch that it perhaps might be notable? Sorry, but that is not sufficient. As for Index Copernicus: their "evaluation" is just a computer program that calculates a score based on information provided by publishers (or anybody who cares to set up an account). Their criteria are decidedly weird (for example, journals get extra points if they have structured abstracts...) IC is, in short, absolutely not a reliable source and nobody I know cares in the least about what IC says (or not says) about their journal(s). --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you. First, the OCLC and the eISSN were both incorrect in the article. I just corrected them. I had no problem locating this journal in Worldcat. I found no Russian libraries listed though, mostly libraries around the US, and some in the UK and Germany. (Remember, it only lists holdings in participating libraries.) Here's my search result: [4] Or go to the article now and click the OCLC link.

I understand what you are saying about the limitations of IC and Worldcat, but that doesn't exclude them as RS. They themselves are notable, reliable, and independent. I presume Worldcat, despite its limitations, is notable, reliable, and independent because it is recommended in the consensus-based NJournals. IC is certainly notable because the editorial boards of 10,409 journals actually have gone through their submission process, reliable meaning there seems to be no reason to think they are academically dubious or dishonest - they list their methods clearly - and I think it's a stretch to think they would be unreliable if 10,409 journals are laying their credibility on the line by actively requesting inclusion and ICV evaluation, and independent in that they have designed their review and scoring methodology independent of Problems of Onomastics. (It looks like a few journals might be gaming the scoring though. I doubt the Journal of Onomastics is though, because they do not mention their score on their website.) These sources are at least something. This is a Russian language humanities journal. Indexing in that field is going to be different from indexing in the natural sciences. Worldcat and IC give reason for me to think this journal is most likely notable (and in themselves possibly satisfying notability on their own, per NJournals, in the minds of some editors), and that someone can find RS to answer the question directly. (Personally I very much prefer structured abstracts. It prevents rambling essays like my posts here, making them more readable.)

You ask "what is the policy-based reason to keep this?" I think that is the question that turns WP: Deletion Policy on its head. (I will give you a reason anyway - it does not satisfy the reasons given in the WP: Deletion Policy.) What is the reason for deleting it? Lack of demonstrated notability is a permissive criterion, not a directive. It may be deleted. But I see no positive reason to act on that. It fits none of the criteria in WP: Deletion Policy for why an article should be deleted, and that is also a policy. Notability is a policy for articles, yes. We must post articles on notable subjects. But if we can't verify notability because of lack of evidence cited in the article, the recommended remedy in WP: Deletion Policy is to tag it so readers know it is not up to WP standards, and so editors know it needs help. Do you have reason to doubt the journal is notable? Or are you only going on the lack of evidence provided? There is a major difference between those two as well. I personally see no reason to doubt its notability. I just don't see evidence in the article.

IMO, deletion is the step that needs to be justified here. What you have given in your argument are reasons that it is permitted to delete, not reasons why it should be deleted according to the WP: Deletion Policy. I think the inertia among WP editors has been to delete what content we may delete, and we have deleted far more than we should. There are essays about this - about the numerous articles that have been speedy deleted in particular that shouldn't have been. Dcs002 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it seems we agree that the article as it currently stands shows no evidence of notability. Therefore, we need to find it in your above arguments (I'm not going to try to explain again that you interpretation of the deletion policy is completely off: once an article is at AFD it gets deleted unless notability can be established). You give two arguments: inclusion in the Index Copernicus and the WorldCat listings. 1/ IC: inclusion in this database is trivial and meaningless. It includes some predatory OA journals. In addition, it is on Jeffrey Beall's list of bogus metrics companies. 2/ Actually, bot OCLC numbers give identical results for me (and the eISSN still is not found in WorldCat): it lists 17 libraries, a rather dismally low number. ANd even that seems too high. The first hit is the "Bayerische Staatsbibliothek". If one clicks that link and goes to the library's own index, we see that it subscribed from 1973 to 1983, so it hasn't subscribed since over 30 years ago (this journal's predecessor, obviously). Let's try the Harvard Library... Nope, also the previous publication. At this point I stopped, because as I said, 17 is a dismal number. The last time I saw number of WorldCat listings used in an AfD debate, it was for a journal that had 400 listings. In short: there is not a shred of evidence that this journal even approaches our inclusion standards. Given your earlier remark about the desired participation of linguists, I have listed this on the linguistics AfD list. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective merge) to Russian Language Institute. Contrary to Randykitty's assertion, some editors like myself do consider Worldcat holdings as contributing evidence toward notability. But in my opinion, Worldcat holdings are not quite enough by themselves to establish notability, as libraries can carry journals for many reasons other than importance. Other evidence toward notability is a mention of the journal in the article The History of Onomastics. I've also seen it claimed that the journal is indexed in the Russian Science Citation Index and was one of the approved journals by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Soviet Union, but I wasn't able to verify either claim--my Russian-fu is terrible. At this point, there isn't enough evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NJournals for this article to survive standalone. But basic facts about the journal are verifiable, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, verifiable information should be preserved, not deleted. The journal is sponsored by the Russian Language Institute--it would make sense to selectively merge a mention of the journal in that article. The topic is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking, thank you for your comments! Randykitty, thank you for inviting the people who know about language. I like the idea of merging with the Russian Language Institute, though that article is barely a stub of a stub. I'm guessing it's more notable than the Journal of Onasmatics, but this journal would be the only real content in that article. It really needs TLC! But as long as the meaningful content is not deleted unnecessarily, I agree with merging it, and I have changed my !vote above.

Randykitty, you said "once an article is at AFD it gets deleted unless notability can be established." This is the inertia I was talking about, and I don't see how it is policy-based. I think we are just used to operating that way for various, and IMO unfortunate, reasons. I don't see that process anywhere in the policy page WP:Deletion or in WP:AFD. WP:N says "For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response..." (Emphasis added) That's a different standard than you're describing. As far as I can tell, we just seem to have fallen into that as a habit. Policies and guidelines are heavily aligned with preserving articles and content, and deleting only as a last resort. Dcs002 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I would also accept a Merge, a/c Mark Viking) . The criteria we have been using for academic journals work nicely for journals in the academic mainstream in the sciences; they do not work well for journals whose notability is primarily limited to a particular country. In almost all other fields at WP, national significance is all that is asked for. I think it should apply here also, and the fundamental reason is WP:Cultural bias. Otherwise we risk becoming only an encyclopedia of what is notable in the major English speaking countries, and such is not our intentions. This journal is apparently part of the Russian academic mainstream, and therefore notable there; I consider this sufficient. I do not think there is however consensus among the very few of us working on academic journals about this, and would accept that in a period of unsettled consensus, a possible way to go for the time being might be to find some sort of merge. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is correct that this is one of the few cases where we disagree, as I find his reasoning here too subjective and not based on sources. However, having said this, I certainly can live with a merge (to which consensus here seems to have converged). --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to the Russian Institute as this is borderline GNG pass; merging seems better.Forbidden User (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question I really am curious to know what makes you think that this is a "borderline GNG pass"... --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 12 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 Bill Murphy (businessman). Clear shift to a consensus. Seddon ^talk 19:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee[edit]

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

Recreation of a repeatedly deleted article. Subject is a basically non-notable FRINGE organization dedicated to exposing alleged conspiracies relating to manipulation of the precious metals market, especially gold. Many of the cited sources are themselves promoters of crank conspiracy theories and gold buggery. Most of the others only tangentially address the subject. Subject fails GNG, ORG and NPOV. It's also a pretty glaring example of PROFRINGE. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG, I performed a web search and limited reliable links showed up indicating limited coverage. The lack of updated information shows the subject is not significant. ///EuroCarGT 03:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Bill Murphy (GATA chairman), the link Roy provided shows a bit of coverage. ///EuroCarGT 18:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. A google book search gives plenty of results. --Soman (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are those books reliable sources though? GATA has a large network of supporters that print and publish fringe material backing GATA's crank conspiracy theories. Once you move outside of the material produced by gold bugs the amount of coverage gets extremely thin. There is a tendency on here to assume that books are automatically RS. That is not the case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "GATA has a large network of supporters that print and publish", then the notability question is resolved. Some of the book results are clearly sympathetic to the group, but not all, see for example Der Spiegel, http://books.google.com/books?id=5SDtAAAAMAAJ. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully, but vigorously disagree. Notability requires in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. That means sources that are not biased or tainted by an agenda. Even if there were a marginal argument for notability, which I do not concede, the article still massively fails NPOV and PROFRINGE. It is clear from its record of deletion and recreation that a group of editors are and have been using it to promote their views. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a look at the article Gold bug and after a little editing believe that it would be a good target for a redirect if anyone thinks that is preferable to a straight delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. They seem to have minimal coverage. Their own website lists media articles about them, most of which are fairly old and aren't very impressive. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill Murphy (GATA chairman). Though tagged otherwise, the latter article seems well-sourced and more robust. This article seems a bit iffy, though much of the content is useful. That the fringe loves the topic more than the mainstream shouldn't count against these articles, by the way. It only matters whether or not reliable sources are insufficient, i.e., absolute rather than relative counts. Calbaer (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that proposed redirect. The article is more a promotion of the fringe conspiracy theories than about Murphy. It is such a brazen WP:COATRACK and NPOV - PROFRINGE fail that I am seriously considering sending it to AfD as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't have an objection to covering Fringe topics, assuming they meet WP:N. But they have to be covered in a manner that is NPOV compliant and avoids the obvious promotion so evident in this and related articles. In the case of this article, I think notability is highly doubtful in addition to the other issues which I see as fatal. In the case of Murphy I would have to do some looking to see if there is enough out there to ring the notability bell. But the article as written is an NPOV train wreck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bill Murphy (businessman). I did find some coverage of GATA in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/business/yourmoney/07gold.html), but it's a minor part of a larger story, and what it does mention is more about Murphy than GATA itself. The NYT article says, GATA for the most part is a one-man show. I think there's enough there to justify the Murphy article, but not both of these. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The reliable references that can be accessed do not support GATA itself as notable. I doubt any verifiability exists, let alone notability, for the subject organization.--Rpclod (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete as failing GNG.~~ Redirect to Bill Murphy (businessman). The best source, a NY Times piece in the footnotes, indicates: "Like Mr. Sinclair, William J. Murphy III is also a Wall Street refugee. After a one-year stint in 1968 as a wide receiver for the New England Patriots, he began a career as a commodities trader, working for a number of firms, including Shearson and Drexel Burnham. Convinced that the price of gold was being suppressed by an unholy alliance between the central banks and major investment banks, he formed the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, known as GATA, that seeks to publicize facts and assertions that support his point, namely that the gold reserves in central banks are significantly overstated. GATA for the most part is a one-man show — Mr. Murphy, dressed in his sweatsuit, perched in front of the computer in his home in suburban Dallas. With his excitable manner and his outré theories about gold, he is generally thought to exist on the outer fringe of the gold-bug movement...." — If the author of this piece seeks to have information about this group preserved, a biography of Mr. Murphy would "stick" since he played professional football and detail on the GATA might be included there, with the name of the organization used as a redirect. So long as there is a good faith effort to write the full biography, I don't envision problems there. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 11 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. The problems noted by the early "delete" !voters (sourcing and copyvio) appear to have been addressed. Though I would feel better if some of those editors had revisited the discussion to confirm or retract their opinions in the light of the current state of the article, the keepers seem to have the stronger policy-based arguments with regard to the revised article. Deor (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Stuart (photographer)[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a non-notable photographer. Probably an autobiography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sourcing. No GNews hits. Edward321 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing. There is a copyright problem also - this writer from France where the person the story is written about lives - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.123.205.62 - wrote on this wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Stuart_%28photographer%29&diff=287319637&oldid=278788093 the exact same story from - http://www.roystuart.net/#!about/c13qh - Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When you realize that a long-established article violates copyright, it can be a good idea to see whether the copyright material was added later, and if so, to revert the article to the state it was in before the addition. (This process took me less than five minutes for this article.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. With one more minute, I'd have remembered to do something else. It occurred to me later, but by then Cyberbot I had beaten me to it. - Hoary (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing has been blanked due to copyright issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have turned the article back to its (admittedly crappy) 2009 state. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable photographer regardless of the current condition of the article. Poor citation/copyvio in the article is an argument to improve the article, not to delete the article and No independent sourcing is not a valid argument here. Any copyright or COI issues should be resolved, obviously. It shouldn't be an autobio. As a retrospective of their career, this photographer has 5 four-pound books from a major independent publisher of art books. Mentioned or work featured in The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (as well as The Concise Focal Encyclopedia of Photography), The Naked and the Lens: A Guide to Nude Photography, The Beginner's Guide to Photographing Nudes, Forms of Desire from St.Martin's Press, etc. Maybe there's some prudishness going on because this photographer deals in erotic imagery, but the subject is clearly not an unknown. Keep and fix the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject receives precisely one sentence in the first two sources, they only get one clause worth of coverage in the others. These trivial passing mentions do not show notability, they show quite the opposite. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. They show quite the opposite. No they don't. Yes, they're compatible with the opposite. This doesn't mean that they show the opposite. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do not give credence to lies in one's haste to shine a light on the truth. Even if there were such a thing as an "opposite" to notability, we at WP would not need to be concerned with it until it entered policy. Going over the top comes a lot quicker when only assertions are available. Mere "absence" lacks the desired rhetorical punch, and since there are no facts on which to expand the argument, the pure invention of "opposite" must be deployed. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has an entry in the curatorial reference work Dictionary of erotic artists, multiple articles in french magazines, etc. Even setting aside any popular press considerations, WP:CREATIVE notability has been directly met with a collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book. The Taschen books are not self-publishing and were put together by an editor for Taschen. His body of work was the subject of a retrospective book more than four times, even if you discount every other mention anywhere else. He meets the basic demands of creative professional notability (which is not the same as general fame).__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Elaqueate. Like his stuff or not, he's a notable pornophotographer. Try for example "Roy Stuart clichés x (Libération): "Pour les quelque 250 000 possesseurs des trois volumes de Roy Stuart publiés par Taschen,...." That averages to 80 thou per title, and this is about forty times the average print run for a photobook. And there's "Nos aînés sont merveilleux - Roy Stuart, photographe explicite" (Brain), "Roy Stuart" (arte.tv), "« Glympstorys » : le nouvel opus du controversé Roy Stuart aux éditions Skylight" (Actuphoto), and plenty more. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because 6 books of photography and 1 set of postcards published by a major mainstream publisher; another book with another publisher; written and directed 3 films; articles in GQ and Arte as refs. -Lopifalko (talk)
Comment. And if you're flagging, here's more to perk you up: "Les filles vues par ... Roy Stuart" (Lui, NSFW). - Hoary (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's certainly a working photographer, but so are hundreds of thousands - all with a similar level of coverage. In a field like photography this degree of press is standard, not exceptional. There is no significant coverage that justifies notability. No independent sourcing. TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, brand new contributor! (Fast work, discovering AfD on your very first day as contributor.) ¶ Stuart is certainly a working photographer, and so are hundreds of thousands -- few with a similar level of exposure (haw haw). How many others get multiple volumes from the decidedly commercial outfit Taschen, hmm? ¶ You want more about him? "Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur la représentation du sexe sans jamais oser le demander à Roy Stuart", and "Roy Stuart au Studio Art and You". -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Y'all have missed the full article review of "Roy Stuart III" at [5], I've also found indications although not definitive that volumes 1 and 3 received reviews in Playboy. (As in, Amazon quotes those reviews.) Putting aside the plausible but unproven references at Playboy, the Salon reference and the other links provided reach WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:01, 11 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. Anyone who wants to redirect this title (to whatever target) is free to do so. Deor (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mather[edit]

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

Non notable actress only starring in 1 tv show, Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG - I wouldn't object to Redirecting to List of Emmerdale characters, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do as the nominator says: Delete or Redirect. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Agree with nominator as well here.Stesmo (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belle Dingle, the character she portrayed on Emmerdale. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Child actress of no note, character is notable. Szzuk (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capability-based programming[edit]

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

Asserts WP:OR at the moment. Comes from an accomplished software engineer advancing a possible approach to device integration and control for Iot devices/systems but currently not an accepted dev. standard amongst the computing firmament . Almost copied verbatim from his blog which he has licensed. scope_creep talk 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Merge into SMPTE ST2071 article, which is becoming an accepted standard. scope_creep talk 12:34 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I'm not seeing enough in the way of WP:RS to justify an article at this point in time. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses a methodology described within the SMPTE ST2071-1 standards document to address the "Basket of Remotes" and object self-description problems posed by generic device/service control applications. I have added the reference to the prose document in which it is defined and removed any text that sounds promotional. posicks talk to me 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology of using identified features (aka. Capabilities in this case) is becoming a common theme in device/service control applications, such as media & device control within the professional media industry, home automation, and the Internet of Things. For example, the Eclipse Smart Home Core project has/is adding similar concepts, calling the objects "Things" and the identified features "Channels", as has the FIMS 1.1 standard with the introduction of "Capabilities" to their Repository specification. In addition, products by vendors such as Fairlight also use these concepts within their product lines in order to allow clients to work with features, not objects. The methodology of implementing self-describing objects through the use of small, concise, uniquely identified features seems to be an emerging development pattern. Maybe this text is better served as part of the SMPTE ST2071 article until the methodology becomes more commonplace. Please advise. posicks talk to me 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi posicks. This is a really filthy business, moving to delete the written word. I really don't want this article deleted (being an inclusionist and being a software dev with 25+ years in industry), but at the moment, there is a drive in WP in which articles need to be both verifiable and notable. Is there any development environment around the standard, any reference designs, any stuff say by a dev community of perhaps Microsoft Codeplex, GitHub, Google Groups or any dev site. Is there any reference samples, resource kits, other blog posts, comments in trade papers, whitepapers anything which can add some depth to the references. Had a look at the FIMS 1.1. It does seem to be an emerging standard, with a Youtube series on. It also seems to be fairly robust. I think a merge into SMPTE ST2071 article is the best approach until it becomes best practice.

scope_creep talk 12:34 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Is it 'In world' or 'out world' - i forget. There is a particular WP term to describe jargon that is only of interest to people who are specialist in a given field. Szzuk (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is currently an unsupported (lacks adequate coverage) WP:Neologism/concept, maybe it is just WP:TOOSOON as scope creep suggests, or maybe it is destined for the dustbin of history. --Bejnar (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hachim mastour[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. An example of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 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 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no FIFA U-20 World Cup appearances[edit]

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

i think this article is redundant to National team appearances in the FIFA U-20 World Cup. If we have a list of countries that did appear a the tournament, we do not need a list of countries that did not appear. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that the notion of teams that have not qualified for the the U-20 World Cup has achieved anywhere near the level of significant reliable coverage as required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:16, 10 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 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hanna[edit]

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

PROD was contested, and does not meet criteria for A7. Article fails the general notability guideline, not having any sources to support the claims made in the article. The only citations which I could come up with was [6], [7], and [8]. Three sources do not an article make and the information currently in the article is largely unverifiable. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems this young lawyer has a promising career, but he seems to fall below the notability threshold for inclusion. EricSerge (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:RESUME. Pburka (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RESUME. Maybe he will become notable but for now it is at best WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 10 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 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sadanand Brahmbhatt[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and even WP:BLP. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No significant coverage. Article has very promotional tone like it was written by a fan. Cowlibob (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A music teacher of no note. Google returns links to his music downloads and personal trivia like his webpage and linkedin page. Szzuk (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 09:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Bet[edit]

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

This is a fourth division league. Fails to satisfy Football notability Guidelines. Would like to take into account all other teams/players in this league.

Withdrawn by nominator That's was a big miss, obviously. Consider it Keep scope_creep talk 17:15 4 Aug 2014 (UTC)

scope_creep talk 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this a joke? Firstly why on earth is a fourth-tier league not notable? Secondly, although it's the fourth tier now, it was at one point the second tier in Israeli football. Thirdly, and most importantly, the nominator does not appear to have read the guidelines they are quoting (which is actually an essay). It quite clearly states that "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." Liga Bet clubs play in the Israel State Cup, and therefore the league meets this criteria. Number 5 7 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - As noted by Number 57, Liga Bet teams are eligible to play in the Israel State Cup. According to WP:FOOTYN: "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." Hence, this league is ~~not considered~~ assumed notable. Weak keep as the assumption is unlikely to hold for all fourth tier leagues and does not seem to be particularly applicable here.--Rpclod (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 5 7 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. – Pee Jay 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely keep, this is absolutely eligible without a shadow of a doubt based on the League notability. all the clubs are taking part in the national cup. lots of history in this league as well, and beside that, just to mention, last season, Maccabi Sektzia Ma'alot-Tarshiha, which have played in Liga Bet, the fourth tier, reached the quarter finals of the national cup. definitely eligible Franforce (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep As mentioned, it's within the Guidelines.Eranrabl (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps SNOW KEEP at this point. Passes notability as described above. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear WP:FOOTYN pass, all teams are eligible for the national cup. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jacobs (journalist)[edit]

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

I'm not 100% sure that this subject passes NBIO. His name does show up a lot online, but it seems to be because he is a journalist for a major newspaper. Also, the subject seems to note that the article was created for the sole purpose of disparaging him as is evident from some of the recent edits by SPAs who want to add information to say tht he has been hypocritical of his own writing or other negative aspects of his role as a foreign press member in the PRC.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misreading, but would you please explain where this piped story says "the subject seems to note that the article was created for the sole purpose of disparaging him"? Jacobs' "The War of Words in China" article says this WP page was "ostensibly devoted to my journalistic achievements" and quotes it that "'Since 2008, Jacobs has written over 400 articles, the vast majority of which portray China in a negative light,' read the entry, which went on to claim that many of those articles contained 'journalistic distortions'." Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs claims that his article has been edited by accounts seeking to disparage him by saying that he has portrayed China in a negative light in his reporting. In the past few days, an account came by to add a sentence saying that the subject does not believe he acts this way, while also adding a reference to an article the subject wrote covering the Uighur (sp?) clashes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, it's easy to understand why you didn't answer the question. I just wanted to point out the creative paraphrasing for editors who vote on this AfD. Keahapana (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. As far as I can tell, subject fails Wikipedia:JOURNALIST. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep. Thanks for below. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 13:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, received an email from subject Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Good riddance. Thanks for that.

Andrew.

Original Message -----

From: [email protected] [9] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 02:40 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: READER MAIL: Andrew Jacobs

Email: [email protected] URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/sunday-review/the-war-of-words-in-ch ina.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&mod ule=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-r egion Comments:Hi, Mr. Jacobs. I wanted to let you know, as a Wikipedia editor, that your Wikipedia page(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jacobs_(journalist)) has been nominated for deletion(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfD)(https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Jacobs_(journalist)). You may wish to comment there. You should note that the notability criteria applying to you is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:JOURNALIST#Creative_professionals. Thank you.

217 Feb 28, 2013

Obvious keep Surprised to see this under China-related discussions. I don't understand what specific WP:BIO criteria this Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist fails to meet. If we delete this article, then do we have to delete most of the 332 other journalists listed under "The New York Times writers" category, or just those who report from China? Keahapana (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Keahapana:Sorry, must respond. The source for Pulitzer goes to NY Times as a whole, and I didn't see anything about subject being a part of that team. If I missed something, please ping me. Thanks, and cheers, Lixxx235-Talk 22:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I looked a little harder and it seems it was the wrong Pulitzer. He was part of the team that won in 2009, not 2002.--Nowa (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nowa. The original ref (now ironically marked {cn}) linked to the 2002 award for the "A Nation Challenged" series. If one goes to the NYT homepage, clicks search, types "Andrew Jacobs" and "A Nation Challenged", one can see his 20 articles. Thanks again for adding the 2009 prize ref, and would you also revert the deleted 2002 info? Perhaps we should say "multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning". Keahapana (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keehapana: Good point, but let's continue on the article talk page since this is about content.--Nowa (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Getting a Pulitzer Prize plus his other accolades pushes him over the requisite notability threshold as having "won significant critical attention". The Chinese obviously don't like him but Wikipedia is not censored. AFAICT, the article has no BLP violations that would warrant its deletion. Eyes need to remain on the article to make sure the non-NPOV pushers don't sneak back in. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the sole recipient of the prize. He was part of a group afaik.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the guideline doesn't state that the contributions of individuals don't count towards a major prize. I don't think anyone would argue that Francis Crick isn't notable because all his work was done in conjunction with James Watson. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the other scientists who worked with them but were not named as recipients of the prize?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs is named as a winner in the Pulitzer Prize citation per the reference in the article. He just wasn't the only contributor, which doesn't make him any less notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Bradley Playmate[edit]

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

This has been taggeded as a hoax, and that seems very likely; but even if it was real it fails WP:Verifiability. Searching finds a number of references, but they are all Wikipedia mirrors or obviously based on this article, or in some cases use the word "Playmate" as a description of other Milton-Bradley toys. There is no independent confirmation of what this article says. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good argument for the Wikimedia Foundation to raise the minimum requirements for creating an article. Nothing in Google books or Google newspapers. Fails WP:V, even if the alleged picture is found. Unscintillating (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the WMF has to do with it, that should be decided by local wikipedia consensus (their editors are going to be the ones dealing with the deletion and verification anyway). Also, this article was added over six years ago. I get the impression that back then the recent changes patrol wasn't quite as thorough. I'm not sure something like this with absolutely no references or indication of notability would last very long if it were added today, especially if it was added by a new or relatively new user (new user edits are more likely to be scrutinized).0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, there was an attempt by the English Wikipedia to raise the minimum requirements about three years ago. The programmers said that it would take them one hour to implement the requested change. The WMF blocked. I can't remember the name of the RfC at the moment. User:Scottywong was closely involved. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was WP:ACTRIAL, a proposal to limit article creation to autoconfirmed accounts. While it would have been effective in cutting out many of the silly/vandalistic new articles we get, it would only have delayed this guy, I doubt it would have stopped him. He knew what he was doing, and would only have had to wait four days and make a few trivial edits. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax The article seems highly implausible on multiple grounds. Computer chess and checkers programs were in their infancy by the late 1960s, so this part is not totally inconceivable, but it's hard to imagine a 1960s-era computer being programmed to play a highly complex strategy game like Stratego with any skill. Battleship wasn't even produced by Milton Bradley until 1967, so the claim that the supposed inventor worked on the prototype for a long time before releasing it in 1968 seems unlikely. Milton Bradley did not produce Connect Four until 1974, leaving very little time to program the device before Cartwright's funding was allegedly withdrawn in 1975. Battleship, Candy Land, and Mouse Trap are all board games with small parts, ill-suited to a 600-cubic-foot computer with a giant robotic claw arm. It seems doubtful that Milton Bradley ever would have committed significant time and money to a project with an excessively high cost, size, and engineering complexity to be viable in the consumer market. Most significant, Mouse Trap was not made by Milton Bradley in the 1960s and 1970s. It was first manufactured by Ideal Toy Company, and several online sources indicate that Milton Bradley did not acquire the rights to Mouse Trap until Ideal's demise in the 1980s. All of this seems to point to a hoax.

In any case, however, this file has been around for 6 years and 6 months, so it should probably be included in Wikipedia: List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.66.177.64.39 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this existed at all. I've searched around a bit. I considered sending an e-mail to Hasbro to see if they have anything on this, but honestly, given that there are absolutely no references to it anywhere, I doubt it would meet notability requirements even if it did exist. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually plausible, and may not be a hoax. I suspect the technology may have been available at the time, the Soviets had a robot on the Moon in 1970. However despite a search, this article fails WP:Verifiability, and so cannot be on wikipedia. Martin451 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terence DuQuesne[edit]

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

Contested PROD. reason was "Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO. Only sources are primary sources" Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this article be deleted is absurd; it easily meets all the relevant criteria. I suggest the person who proposed its deletion does his homework.

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are a web page of a company started by the subject (and for which the sole product line is one book written by the subject) and a non-authoritative blog. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did I miss something? Check out The Supreme Council For Antiquities at http://www.sca-egypt.org/

and also the National Gallery Of Art http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/exhibitions/2002/egypt.html DuQuesne made significant contributions in his field, Egyptology. If you don't know what that word means, look it up in a real encyclopaedia.

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of the Supreme Council for Antiquities turned up nothing, and a contribution mention at the NGA isn't enough. Is that all you can find that meets WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another citation, by an Egyptian academic

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N5maPgD4BnYC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22Terence+DuQuesne%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=xsqTiONScB&sig=vcZacle-XnZf6uYQf61veaqs2zE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R4zeU6TuL8ew7Aae64CoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Terence%20DuQuesne%22%20-wikipedia&f=false

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Citations from Google Books[reply]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Terence+DuQuesne%22&gws_rd=ssl

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to learn how to use Google: http://www.isbns.net/isbn/9789774372315

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to this conclusion after noting that despite VennerRoad trying what I assume is their best, nothing has been found to show notability per our criteria at WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BASIC. For instance, no "significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Publications or brief mentions aren't enough. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am well aware of what Egyptology is (as is Dougweller). My field of interest is Egyptian religion, which I research in great detail, so I have come across DuQuesne's name several times. His work on jackal deities was certainly valuable and has been cited for that reason (e.g. in this article). But he seems to have worked independently, to the extent of publishing his own work, so he is unlikely to fit the notability criteria for academics that depend on holding influential posts. As for the first criterion, "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", DuQuesne's discipline would be Egyptology, not any specialized subject within it. DuQuesne's Egyptological specialty, jackal deities, was quite narrow. Although I'm sure he knew more about the subject than anybody else, and I wish he had been able to complete the later volumes of his magnum opus on the subject, it's not the sort of thing that gains great recognition even within Egyptology. There are many other scholars whom I have seen cited more often than DuQuesne but probably don't meet that criterion either. (Incidentally, the only living scholars of Egyptian religion who I am absolutely certain would meet the first criterion are Erik Hornung and Jan Assmann, who have greatly shaped current thinking about Egyptian theology and the Egyptian worldview more generally and are almost invariably mentioned in current surveys of the religion. It's a pretty high bar.) A. Parrot (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your low opinion of the man and his work is not shared by the leading UK institutions. On his death he bequeathed his papers to the Griffith Institute. This august museum sent two full professors to his Norbury Crescent home who spent two days there conducting an inventory and taking what they wanted. These papers have now gone to 3 institutions.

If you want to delete a non-entity, I suggest you start with Satpal Ram.

I rest my case

A Baron VennerRoad (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a "low opinion" of DuQuesne; I admire his dedication to his chosen specialty and wish he could have completed his work. Aside from that, he sounds like an interesting man—but my opinion of him is irrelevant. You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's notability criteria, which are not based on the subject's value to society. Instead, they are based on how many sources, independent of the subject, have covered the subject in enough depth to write an article based on them. (Perhaps the best explanation of the reasoning behind the notability criteria is this essay by an experienced Wikipedian.) For academics, notability requires a sign that the academic was one of the leading figures in his or her field. Obviously the Griffith Institute regarded DuQuesne's papers as valuable resources for research, but that does not mean he was a highly influential figure in the field, however productive he may have been.

If you want me to reverse my decision, point me to sources that describe DuQuesne in depth. You haven't provided much on this page, and all I've found by myself is an obituary on the website for Darengo Publishing (his own press) and another on a blog. In other Wikipedia deletion discussions, editors have questioned whether an obituary in the New York Times is enough to make a person notable when other sources are absent. Considering that, I don't think the sources I've seen on DuQuesne are nearly sufficient. A. Parrot (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/duquesne-papers/ VennerRoad (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That still fails to show any in depth discussion, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent 58 years arguing with morons; I'm not prepared to waste another minute arguing with them on this site. These people http://wikipediabias.com/ have you summed up to a tee. I should have realised that with all the edits and corrections I've had deleted over the years. Do what you want, delete the whole site. I couldn't give a toss. Asshole. A Baron

~~Wow, 58 years arguing with morons. 58 years knowing you are right and everyone else is a moron. Impressive. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking that, he's just another editor who has come here a few weeks ago with assumptions about what Wikipedia is and finds himself either unwilling to understand how we work or just simply disliking how we work. Sad but Wikipedia is not for everyone. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being a published Egyptologist is not enough and we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In view of the paragraphs at http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/duquesne-papers/ it seems to me that, once the cataloguing etc is complete (at some point in the future) the gentleman may pass our threshold. This may be worth noting by the closer, assuming the outcome is deletion. Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 10 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. The sourcing in the article could stand to be beefed up, though. Deor (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Webb (anti-censorship campaigner)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "Does not pass WP:BIO and the references do not assist" Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this article be deleted is absurd; it easily meets all the relevant criteria. I suggest the person who proposed its deletion does his homework.

A Baron — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't censor. WP:NOT censored. There are a few internet-based references (not included in the article), and it isn't a BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article ultimately fails WP:GNG in its present state, and the research for reliable sources did not seem promising. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) It has been brought to my attention that this person is indeed notable, but due to the lacking sourcing due to the figure that there was no Internet, there may not be sources present in article. Change vote to Keep. Tutelary (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing strongly suggests a lack of notability. There seems to be a substantial archive of materials at http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa_site_index.html - I'm not saying these could be usable on Wikipedia - but their quantity does suggest the organisation had some notability and influence at the time it was active, which should make us cautious about deleting. This was all pre-internet, so a lack of online references is not an important indication of lack of notability. There is no Wikipedia article on the organisation National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Acts so maybe an alternative is to rename the article to that title and expand it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not set in my viewpoint to delete, so if you can come up with sources--even offline ones to verify notability, I'll change my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has an imdb entry http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0916079/ with 82 credits to his name. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb isn't a reliable source for BLPs and cannot be used to demonstrate notability, but it gives me a starting point to look over and attempt to find reliable sources denoting the movies and shows he's been in. Tutelary (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, remember he's dead - so is not a BLP. I'd argue that imdb content can indicate notability, it just can't be used as a source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be used? http://www.seangabb.co.uk/?q=node/645 The info in it about the British Board of Film Censorship being denied its longstanding protecting a 'vulnerable minority' (i.e. the working class, or women) from seeing things excuse for censorship thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights and its concept of proportionality seems to be an extremely important change to the application of laws in Britian. And if David Webb was responsible for initiating the events that led to that change, as the obituary suggests, that fact alone means he is notable. Was this perhaps even the first time the concept was tested in Britain? The very same human rights concept of proportionality is the one that might get Israel's leaders/war criminals brought to justice.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was involved in an anti-censorship campaign and, according to unreferenced and not necessarily reliable sources, appeared in a number of minor roles that do not meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR.--Rpclod (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Webb founded NCROPA, not was involved with. The NCROPA papers are held by Warwick University: http://dscalm.warwick.ac.uk/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=DServeadv.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqCmd=Show.tcl&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqPos=0&dsqSearch=((text)%3D%27ncropa%27)

As for "minor" acting rolls, his touring credits include "The Odd Couple" and "The Water Gipsies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable enough for NCROPA per above, but just have a look at all the roles he played in television.[10] Wnt (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founded what was a fairly significant organisation in its day. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Necrothesp TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not the first article I have seen that had fewer sources than desirable but was obviously notable to living Wikipedians. Wikipedia must decide whether it is right to be covering only everything after the internet age fully, and lose everything within the memory of people born between 1930 and 1980. The systemic bias of the AfD process, which despite a veil of blissful belief to the contrary is heavily weighted towards voting, has been enough to keep many valuable, vulnerable articles alive, but it will not always be so. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- David Webb is also in the category of people who are famous for each of several achievements in life; there should be provision that additional notability should be accrued in this way, and there is none in policy so far. We have, BLP:1E; we should have its converse, a BLP:MANYEVENTS too. Anarchangel (talk) 23:21, 10 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 03:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HALO (Korean band)[edit]

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

Another newly-formed Kpop band. Too soon for an article - wait until they have achieved something to the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, they meet no points of notability per WP:MUSICBIO Asdklf; (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and I can't see that they meet GNG either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best WP:TOOSOON. Definitely not WP:GNG WP:BAND yet. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:22, 10 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.[edit]

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

Even though well written, lacks independent notability.Also lacks reliable sources.The many references include “LinkedIn’, the local penny saver, local edge - a white page directory, trade journals like 'pit and quarry' etc. Heavily dependant and relies on content from Dan Gernatt Farms and Gernatt Family of Companies. NQ talk 16:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Reliable sources about the subject include The Buffalo News, Buffalo Business First, and McClatchy Tribune Business News. The subject is also described in newspapers and/or journals throughout the country, including newspapers in Florida and North Carolina, as well as in the journal, Pit and Quarry. Content included from the companies is to help support the career of the subject, and further supports the article, though independent notability has been established, as per Wikipedia's standards. LinkedIn, the local newspaper, and local edge are certainly not needed to establish notability, but support the article, as notability has already been established. It should also be noted that this article has been rated B class, causing it to be subject to being maintained, not deleted. The article further meets Wikipedia's notability standards regarding the subject receiving a notable award in his field. Gernatt received the Business Award in his locale, as well as being recognized for its receipt by a unanimous proclamation from the New York State Assembly. Tell me, how many people have received such honors, and from the legislators of their entire state? I am also the article's creator. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Part of a set of vanity articles about a family and its enterprises. Edison (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like the author threw into the references any document that mentions the subject's name even if it is does not actually discuss the subject. Also, most of the references are not authoritative. WP is not a who's who.--Rpclod (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage in third party publications. That said, it is a little top-heavy on sources that aren't, so a little article work wouldn't hurt anything. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments of Edison.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too many of you are looking at the surface of the article, and not looking in further depth. If you look at the article's history, User:Edison was quick to make an inaccurate edit to the article, requesting a reliable source when it was already included. Edison, after realizing the error, reverted his edit. Additionally, I have taken considerable time to edit out information related to the companies, as well as many sources that added support for the subject through the companies and foundation. You can see this at the edit history that I have cut out considerable text and references. That stated, I have also added many reliable sources. The subject is identified and described in many Google books. In particular, he is described in detail in several Classic Car books listed on Google, and which I have now included in the article. It should also be noted that this is the 4th article in relation to the Gernatt's that has been nominated for deletion, even though notability has been established. To me, these actions make it appear more like jealousy toward this family and its companies. Those of you who have made "delete" votes, I invite you to now take another look at the article as notability is obviously established. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are a family member, friend or employee, it might seem like "jealousy." I you have zero connection to them, it might not. Edison (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I received the following message from Daniellagreen on my talk page: "Please take another look at Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. and reconsider your decision." I think that Daniellagreen's original authorship, emotional response above and direct requests for reconsideration collectively warrant an assumption that Daniellagreen's input suffers from conflicts of interest. Further, additional review confirms my initial vote of delete for the reasons that I list above.--Rpclod (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not affiliated with the Gernatt's. I am not a family member. I am not an employee. Nor, have I ever been either one. Neither am I a friend. My response is based on the many deletion requests related to these articles, in which I merely have an interest, and which deletion requests are entirely unwarranted. To Edison, your comments are merely your opinion and have no basis in fact. The same to Rpclod. Improvements were made to the article, with text removed, and with many additional reliable sources included establishing increased notability. My request was merely that you take another look at the article and reconsider your decision. I have not requested that you do anything else than that. There is no violation in doing that. I am entitled to feel slighted by the many attacks on these articles in which deletion requests are unwarranted. Why not try contributing to it rather than criticizing it and tearing it down, as well as myself? I am a writer with professional experience, and have come from a business that prided itself in cooperation, not conflict, as there has been too much of here. Obviously, it's easier for some to tear others and their work down rather than contribute and build them up. Wikipedia's policies enable too much of that. That's where the true issue lies. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and delete arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough amount of third party and governmental sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reflection on the editor who made the afd, as well a those who have voted for deletion, shows that these editors have not done any in-depth research to understand that detailed information about the subject is provided in several Google books (particularly those about classic cars), as well as in newspapers throughout the country. This afd is biased and do not reflect good faith. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Running the 34th largest crushed stone supplier in the US is not a convincing claim to notability. Pretty much all the independent sources are passing mentions, and repeated use of a penny saver article as a reference is a really bad indicator. I do not see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just a plethora of routine mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the gruelling discussion I had with the creator of the article here, and to show her that Wikipedia isn’t such an evil place like she makes it out to be, I have cleaned up the article for easier reading. I have also removed the citation overkill and placed the relevant sources accordingly. I doubt it changes much. But hey, at least I tried. Thanks, Regards, NQ talk 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When a controversial decision is made to do an AFD, the requestor of the AFD should expect disagreement regarding their decision. Notability has been established. And, alas, it appears the unique unanimous proclamation by the State Assembly has been forgotten. Such a waste of many hours of hard work. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally, the head of a major company is notable; but checking Gernatt Family of Companies, it's a small firm of 200 people (which I am about to list for afd). Normally, the recipient of an honorary degree from a university is notable, but he's received one from a small local college apparently for being a contributor, which does not seem a reasonable claim to notability. Proclamations by the State Assembly do not make anyone notable. Far from it. The only claim to notability is as head of Classic Car Club of America I'm not happy about the article on the club, which seems to be a promotional article written in an unencyclopedic tone containing mostly material that should belong only on their website, so it's hard to judge its importance--but in any case I do not think the organization sufficiently important to imply notability of its director. Alas, putting in a large amount of good work on a subject which is of dubious notability , is not a reason for keeping the resulting article. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, a proclamation by a state-level governing body IS adequate to establish notability, certainly in the United States. Obscurity is not-non-notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly, why not list all of the articles I have created for deletion!!! As I recall, some of them include Sir Taurus, Gallo Blue Chip, White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, Bill Greiner, F.C. Richardson, Ellicott Creek Bike Path, Pat McGee Trail, Dan Gernatt Farms, Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Dianna Gernatt Saraf, and what the heck, why not throw in Flavia C. Gernatt for a double dose of afd! I'm sorry that I ever came on Wikipedia. Haters. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge to Gernatt Family of Companies WP:GNG comes down to whether a subject is sufficiently important and covered that the general public would come to an encyclopedia to search for it. While the argument can be made that the award given by the NY State Assembly passes WP:ANYBIO, it all comes down to how likely is this to be searched for. I see no problem with sourcing, content, or any other Wikipedia policy but this subject is just past the obscure line for inclusion as I see it. As much as I appreciate the incredible amount of excellent work Daniellagreen has put into this article, aside from the nonsense in early July and the listing of this AFD I don't see more than a cursory notice of this article's subject. I tried hard to find a reason to save this from deletion, but per the established guidelines, I have to argue deletion. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 04:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a correct interpretation of GNG which is concerned only with depth of coverage and quality of sources. Notability has nothing to do with whether people are likely to search for a topic. Low page views is explicitly included in the essay on arguments to avoid and rightly so. James500 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment As I had stated in my archived 5 talk page regarding this issue, the subject has met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as per my reasons given throughout this comment section. The issue should not be about whether the subject has achieved enough subjective notability relative to editors' personal perspectives. Why have guidelines if they are not going to be honored? It has also been my experience in the recent past that notability on Wikipedia is about editors' personal subjective perspectives, even though a subject has achieved notability requirements. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that an official online record of the proclamation cannot be found in the New York State Assembly database because they only began digital records in 1999. This proclamation was awarded prior to that, and is sourced in the article per associated references. If an official government proclamation that is unanimous to a person by an entire state's assembly is not noteworthy, then nothing is. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of a company. Proclamation of state legislature. Coverage in periodicals. James500 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being the CEO of a small, regional, privately-held company meets no notability guideline. Many state legislatures issue such proclamations in large numbers, and they do not establish notability. I've got one and I am not notable. Such a proclamation is a primary source and requires an independent secondary source to place it in context and show its importance. Run of the mill coverage in local periodicals does not establish notability. We need significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:Daniellagreen. ~~Article~~ Subject is notable. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC) — Strawberrie Fields (talk) [reply]

User has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:NQ

My activity shows that I am not here for SPA. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment We require topics to be notable, and don't judge articles themselves by that standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Daniellagreen, please don't take these discussions personally, and please don't worry about whatever else you've created. I, for one, would strongly fight against the deletion of White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Not all of your work will be deleted. Any any case, getting an award from the New York State Assembly really is not that big of an honor. The Assembly information office told me they issue over a thousand citations annually. There are so many they don't even list them all on their website. It looks like the business, Gernatt Family of Companies, is almost certainly notable due to the sheer number of subsidiaries, work sites, and lawsuits it has been involved in as a party. However, even the CEO of many a notable company would rather hide in the background, and not bring attention to himself; the IRS and kin are always looking for a handout. Only egomaniacs do that. Even then, it is very difficult to edit a good article (GA) about business people. Take Donald Trump for example; his English Wikipedia article was once so sketchy I even suggested once that it be deleted for lack of information. Ever since some very bad publicity happened to us, we have steered away from badly sourced articles about living people, even creating a new policy about BLPs to prevent that scandal from happening again. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edison. It seems difficult to establish sufficient independent notability for Gernatt. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone please close and delete this already? This is an old afd. I would like to get some peace, closure, and move on. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not individually notable.Forbidden User (talk) 17:11, 12 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna Gernatt Saraf[edit]

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

Non notable. Lacks reliable sources. Even her LinkedIn profile states she is a mid-level manager. See article talk for more discussion. NQ talk 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established for this article. The subject meets more than the minimal requirements of Wikipedia regarding notability. This former "mid-level manager" is notable. Simply because someone was not a top executive does not mean she/he is not notable. Notability is established by references specifically describing the subject in The Buffalo News, as well as books and/or articles out of White Plains, New York and Washington, DC, which are also reliable sources. She has been involved in negotiating multi-million dollar contracts, as described in The Buffalo News and McClatchy Tribune Business News, and she has been a member of the search committee for Congressmember Chris Collins when he became county executive in Erie County, also described in both of those sources. The subject also had two articles published in a reliable source, The Buffalo News, about her wedding and marriage to Richard Saraf, again reflecting her notability. She has been further described in journals such as Pit & Quarry and North American Quarry News. Other sources included in the article add more to and support it. The article has also been rated as C Class by an experienced editor, reflecting that it should not be subject to deletion. Further, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, this subject has received a significant honor in her field - the Silver Medallion, bestowed upon her by a national association in her field. All of this information is pertinent to maintaining the article. I am also the article's creator. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO as not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Wikipedia is not the social pages. Poise and talents don't enter into it, nor does being well-connected or doing well at good schools. While the Gernatt Family of Companies may be recognized among the top producers of crushed stone in the United States, that doesn't make their attorney notable by association. Nor is an award from within the industry "a well-known and significant award or honor" as described in WP:ANYBIO. Donating to politcal campaigns doesn't make a person notable, etc. I could go on about the non-notable details in this bio, but my point comes down to the absence of anything that does make the person notable by Wikipedia's standards. Where's the significant, interesting or unusual? Bishonen | talk 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Even at the Good Article level, an article's notability does not factor into its rating. Those two entities simply look at different matters. There are 32 references in this entry, but eight of them are used to verify who the subject's parents, grandparents and siblings are. Most of the rest run into the problems of routine coverage described by Bishonen. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article deserved the C-Class rating for quality, nothing in the article or in the references point to this person being notable. Stesmo (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of effort has clearly gone into writing the article and it is of a reasonable standard. However, none of that really counts for anything because the person is not even close to being notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, I must declare an interest: were I Catholic and living in Buffalo (which I'm sure is delightful - wherever it is) I too would be "active with its Roman Catholic Diocese." Also, I'm convinced that being active in the construction industry, and recognized with an award by the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association is all very worthy (although what a woman is doing with construction, sand and gravel one shudders to think - I just hope she has a good manicurist. I also note that she's a regular donor to the political campaigns of government leaders (I too donate to that nice Mr Cameron - I hope she's not giving to those Bush people (I like poor little Mrs Clinton - what she's had to endure!), but at the end of the day, one must ask the question - despite all that hard core sand and gravel - is she notable (Ms Saraf that is, not poor Mrs Clinton), and the answer has to be No, she is not. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject has achieved at least minimal notability as per Wikipedia' standards. Perhaps she is not described in 10-20 reliable sources, but she is in at least 2-5 reliable sources. Perhaps she is not as notable as any of you desire, however she has achieved notability per Wikipedia's requirements. The attacks on these articles in relation to this family and its members are another reflection of unnecessary ugliness on Wikipedia, and for which I am scaling back my efforts here. There is too much conflict, and not enough cooperation, with too many editors' personal perspectives getting in the way of good and fair editing. This subject has achieved notability per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. To delete the article would be to ignore such guidelines in favor of personal perspectives. I have weathered more than enough. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the wonderful and even heroic efforts by the article creator to find and incorporate references in what seems to be a thorough and well written biography, the subject just does not rise to satisfying WP:BIO at this point in her career. Edison (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG; we can see this another way in the article itself, which fails to mention what DGS is notable for; what is she known for? Searched SERPS, didn't find much, current "references" do not meet WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No convincing claim of notability is made regarding this utterly non-notable person. If local newspaper write-ups, mentions in trade publications, volunteering for charity and religious groups and political campaigns, and donating to political candidates makes a person notable, then I am notable. But I am not notable, and neither is Diana Gernatt Seraf. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for making me regret ever becoming a member of this organization. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Daniellagreen, you sound exasperated with others here at Wikipedia and at its rules. I understand how you feel; most of us who have been here at Wikipedia for a while find ourselves feeling the same way at one time or another. A few years ago, I wrote some huge articles, investing much time, that got chopped to smithereens with no mercy whatsoever. You may not see it now, but the combative nature of the place is one of the reasons why the encyclopedia is so dynamic and useful. A way to deal with this kind of stuff is to cultivate a spirit of detachment -- life is change, things are in flux, so try to see that you are attached to a viewpoint that is fixed (ie that DGS is notable). If you can detach yourself from a fixed way of seeing things, you will find yourself better able to learn from many of the sharp minds here at Wikipedia, and you will be a more powerful writer intellectually, in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Snowden-Fine[edit]

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

Non notable actress only starring in 1 tv show, Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP of a minor who may not even pursue a future acting career. Fails WP:FUTUREPROOF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible source here, a mention here, mention here, but does not appear sufficient to meet the WP:GNG test of reliable, independent, multiple nontrivial sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 10 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prijesh Kannan[edit]

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

At best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E, but as far as I see, being in the Guinness Book of Records is not an award that renders somebody notable. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Article was created as a draft, and declined as not notable multiple times. Article was 'self-published' by an account named after the subject of the article, as that account's only edit. Article has been the subject of many repeated discussions at #wikipedia-en-help, and notability has repeatedly been researched by helpers who have determined that this is a case of BLP1E. What's more, all indications are, IMO, that this is purely and simply a case of attempted self-promotion by the subject of the article. I strongly suspect, based on these conversations, that the helpees are all the subject of the article. The 'help requests' at this point have devolved to pure otherstuff arguments, and complaints that the article is not being given sufficient time to improve.

While the subject of the article does appear to have some degree of 'reknown' as a Guinness world record holder, I have yet to see any indication of significant coverage that fulfills the notability criteria, and the subject appears to be heavily self-promoting. I strongly suspect at this point that if the article is deleted a refund request will be made, and the article recreated as refund abuse. A salt should thus be considered by the closing admin. Revent^talk 07:26, 5 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 03:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Concha (writer)[edit]

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

BLP(Author) Article fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. A speedy deletion has already been declined. Notable works seem to point to films or disamb. pages. Only two books, first published in 2013. scope_creep talk 2:45, 26 July 2 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. From what I can see, she does have a fanbase out there but has yet to actually gain the mainstream coverage that we require for authors. I wish I could say that she's received the coverage necessary since one of her books has a character with a similar first name as mine, but the coverage just isn't here. There's a fanbase, but we can't base notability on an author's popularity, as that only makes it more likely that someone will gain coverage but isn't a guarantee. No problem with someone wanting to userfy the content, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as Tokyogirl179 TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 10 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 03:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izaskun Zubillaga[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Search for reliable third party sources comes up empty. Productions she has been in are either non-notable or extremely minor. Cannot verify anything outside of IMDB (unreliable source) or her personal website. —Farix (t | c) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was speedy-deleted after 30 days on the Spanish wiki, see here. That's not good sign. Zero^talk 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That appears to have been a BLPprod deletion. However, our BLPprod criteria is different and any existing source on the article (reliable or not) prevents that process. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability which seemed to have been proven over at the ES Wiki. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The films she has appeared in are all shorts, and the roles appear minor. There's no information on anything else that might actually make her notable. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 10 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) 12:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Atafo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Reads like a puff piece. Only been on the go for 5 years. Minor fashionista tailor starting out, just out of training.

Also does not appear in any of these lists, where most of Africa's leading seem to be appear. [[11]] [[12]] (Ozwald Boateng is on this list, indicates the list is notable) [[13]]

Can't seem to identify him outside of ref's which are mostly advertising. scope_creep talk ) 12:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Right - at first I was going to say delete, mainly because his website couldn't be located, and what I saw at www.weddingsbymai.com did not show notability - but then I had a bit of a deeper search. And I think he is notable enough in Africa to be deserving of an article as per the sources I managed to trawl up:
Bella Naija] web magazine - seems to have an editorial team, news stories, and contributors, although probably a blog. Actually, a search for Mai Atafo on this site brings up a not insignigicant number of articles about his work over the last few years, including 1.
His name is Ohimai Atafo - a search for that pulled up his profile on Native and Vogue International Fashion Week] website, an event which is dedicated to celebrating African fashion.
Interview in Vanguard] - Vanguard (Nigeria) is a daily Nigerian newspaper under independent editorial control, so seems a good source.
Editorial commentary prior to an interview for Nigerian Entertainment Today
Articles at Gistus such as 1 and 2 - another blog-like celeb/gossip site but with an editorial team and control.
Coverage at Thisdaylive.com - including this pretty good commentary on him and other significant mentions such as 1, and 2.
Nice article/interview from Nigerian Hero.

I would say, based on these, and many other sources that I saw, that Mai Atafo is definitely worth an article - he clearly has notability in Africa as a fashion designer and tailor. African fashion design is really underrepresented on Wikipedia so I feel it would be good to keep and improve this article. Mabalu (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Great analysis Mabalu, all the sources you provided are all popular reliable entertainment and news sources in Nigeria. For The Punch Newspaper to dedicate an entire article on him, it speaks notability. The article needs to be wikified and incorporated to other existing articles. It has definitely received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG per the sources in the article. Darreg (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Mabalu TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what others above me have said. The article was even on my TO-DO list, before it was eventually created by another user.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:35, 10 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 Hamish & Andy (radio show). j⚛e decker ^talk 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Chip[edit]

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

one-off nn radio gimmick, fails ONE EVENT Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Perhaps merge relevant content into Hamish & Andy (radio show). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge selectively~~ Redirect to Hamish & Andy (radio show), ~~and then redirect~~. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, modified my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hamish & Andy (radio show). Normally I'd say merge but there doesn't really seem to be much mergeable content. Jenks24 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Sure, it got some soft entertainment-page coverage at the time (eg [14]) but I'd hardly consider this kind of thing to demonstrate genuine notability or, per WP:EVENT (if it is even applicable), any kind of lasting impact or in-depth coverage. I'm not sure what could sensibly be merged either, but there's no harm in keeping the history underneath the redirect in case. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hamish & Andy (radio show), although every fibre of my being is screaming entirely everyone on the face of the planet will have forgotten about this within 1 year. AlanS (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this gimmick is from 2008 so I'm not sure what difference 2015 would make to 2014. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owle Schreame Awards[edit]

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

Article about a newly created theatre awards program. The only (unique) source is an article in The Stage which has been picked up in syndication by a few blogs. Lacks significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant additional coverage; it just wasn't listed yet in the less-than-24-hours-old stub. Softlavender (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- As a new award, it has no winners yet, but it may well want it in due course (when it has). I therefore regard it as harmless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Peterkingiron, and in case this AfD results in a deletion consensus, I recommend userfying it, so that once the awards get underway, if they become significantly more notable we won't have to reinvent the wheel to recreate the article. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There's coverage across National, Industry, Local and Academic press. This constitutes significant. The notability is attested to in said coverage, and (as already stated by Peterkingiron and Softlavender above) notability and significance will only increase once the awards have actually been held. MarlovianPlough (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Bednar[edit]

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

Non-notable college football player who was chosen in the 1964 NFL and AFL drafts, but never played in a regular season NFL or AFL game. Subject not entitled to a presumption of notability under the specific guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, etc.) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played regular season game in NFL, AFL or other top-tier league). Notwithstanding assertions in article and various 2007 obituaries that subject played for NFL's St. Louis Cardinals, NFL.com (see here) and Pro-Football-Reference.com (see here) confirm no player by that name ever played in the NFL or AFL. Other references show that Bednar was drafted in both the NFL and AFL, but never played. A review of the most recent Notre Dame football media guide confirms that Bednar did play tight end for the mediocre Notre Dame teams of the early 1960s.

Everybody with me so far? Okay, here's where it gets interesting: when Bednar died in 2007, he got ink with a wire service obituary that inaccurately claimed (in some versions) that he was the inventor of the Harvey Wallbanger cocktail. Wrong. He was not the inventor (see the Wikipedia article for details), but he was a salesman for the distributor of Galliano (key ingredient in the drink) and was responsible for promoting the cocktail. That's a long way of saying the subject is a minor footnote in the history of a now largely passe cocktail. The subject clearly falls in the grey area between completely NON-NOTABLE per GNG and NON-NOTABLE per WP:ONEEVENT. Accordingly, I suggest we REDIRECT to Harvey Wallbanger, and ensure the subject's immortality there with one or two well-sourced sentences and a couple of footnotes. Bottom Line: there is not enough substance available to justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article for George Bednar. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in truly horrible shape and has been since the stub was created seven years ago. Also, the Wallbanger claim seems dubious at best and should be corrected if inaccurate. That said, I can't express an opinion yet as to whether or not, based on his football career, he passes WP:GNG or other criteria. I'll take a stab at investigating. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat emptor notice: I was intrigued by the cocktail stuff and will be sipping on one or more Harvey Wallbangers as I do my research ... have always been looking to be the Galliano in my bar to good use! Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as former bartender, Cbl, a HWB is about the only decent cocktail you can make with Galliano. When I was in law school, I slung drinks in a place that had a single, 20-year-old bottle of Galliano -- never opened. It was one of the old Galliano bottles, too, one of the obnoxiously tall ones that did not fit on any of the regular bottle shelves. Carthago delenda est ====> Bednar must be redirected! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Drink was ok, but article not so much. I've rewritten the article to ensure that the article is sourced, at least while we assess it. Based on my review of multiple databases, I could not find coverage of Bednar with any depth whatsoever, except for the 2007 obit from the Wilkes-Barre hometown newspaper that appears to be rife with errors. Not enough IMO to pass WP:GNG. As for WP:NGRIDIRON, Bednar was listed on the Cardinals roster during the week of Sept. 19, 1964 (i.e., after the first regular season game was played), but I find no record of his being on the roster in any other week. Also no references to him in any game coverage that I could find, and as noted by Dirtlawyer, nfl.com seems to indicate he never appeared in a pro game. I would expect more coverage about someone who played for Notre Dame (he did play for ND according to reliable sources) and who was picked to play in the Blue-Gray and College All-Star games, but I'm not finding it. Linemen just don't seem to get the coverage that players at other positions do. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Notre Dame teams of 1960 to 1963 were some of the most mediocre Irish teams ever fielded, before ~~Dan Devine~~ Ara Parseghian revived their fortunes in the mid-1960s. The 2012 ND football media guide confirmed he was a letterman and his NFL Draft status; neither is in dispute. All of that having been said, his claim to fame, such as it is, was being the promoter of the Harvey Wallbanger. BTW, where are you getting access to the old Sporting News images? I could use those for All-American references -- TSN's on-line articles all disappear within months, so even the All-America teams for the 2000s cannot be accessed through the TSN website. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete TSN archives available for relatively small annual subscription at https://paperofrecord.hypernet.ca/ I use it mostly for my old baseball articles, as they didn't even start covering football until after WWII. Cbl62 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problem is that the TSN All-America football teams have been considered major selectors by the NCAA for determining consensus All-Americans, and there is no Google Archive, etc., where you can go to the view old TSN articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and there's nothing to show he meets WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Jakejr (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 10 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bone Clocks[edit]

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

This was deleted at AfD, then brought to deletion review, where the outcome was to relist. I am listing this as an administrative function only, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first and only Wikipedia article, so I apologize for any mistakes. I originally believed there were enough sources commenting on the book's upcoming release to merit the creation of the article. Currently, it is possible to pre-order the novel from stores such as Amazon and Waterstones and there have even been some reviews from reputable outlets (e.g. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-mitchell/the-bone-clocks/; http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4000-6567-7). Additionally, a cover has been released for it (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/david-mitchell/bone-clocks.htm) and it has been long-listed for the Man Booker Prize 2014 (http://www.themanbookerprize.com/books/bone-clocks). I hope this provides sufficient grounds for considering it notable and proves the contents of the article is not mere speculation regarding the future. -- Julian Dremot talk 12:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a novel that yet to be published it has sufficient reputable sources to make it very clear that it is notable. Given Mitchell's track record its a no-brainer that as soon as it is published it will be reviewed by a large number of publications. Deleting as WP:TOOSOON is not really appropriate: at worst it should be userfied.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the book's addition to the 2014 Man Booker Prize list found by 86.45.76.161 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 26#The Bone Clocks, I found that The Bone Clocks has received a review from the Publishers Weekly:
"Fiction Book Review: The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell. Random, $30 (640p) ISBN 978-0-8129-9473-5". Publishers Weekly. 2014-06-02. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
Julian Dremot has found another review from the Kirkus Reviews:
"The Bone Clocks Kirkus Review". Kirkus Reviews. 2014-06-17. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.
The concern in the previous AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bone Clocks ("Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements") no longer applies.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty much per all of the above. Like many other forms of creative work, books often receive GNG-satisfying coverage before their official release. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pointless to delete something which if not notable now will almost unquestionably be notable in a month. Waste of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Even being on the long list for the Booker prize marks it out from the 1000s of NN novels published each year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. After careful review of the added references, and those related to the subject's college football career in particular, I have concluded that the subject satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Adamaitis[edit]

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

Non-notable college and semi-pro football player. Subject not entitled to a presumption of notability under the specific guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, etc.) or WP:NGRIDIRON (never played regular season game in NFL or other top-tier league). Notwithstanding assertions in article and linked obituary that subject played for NFL's Washington Redskins, NFL.com (see here) and Pro-Football-Reference.com (see here) confirm no player by that name ever played in the NFL. Random fan site confirms subject did play for the semi-pro "Washington Presidents" in 1937 (see here), thus the obvious confusion. There is insufficient in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Please note that college team media guides, fan sites, blogs, etc., do not count, and WP:ROUTINE and trivial mentions don't establish GNG notability, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ article claims he played in the NFL for the Washington Redskins. The source could be better, but until that is shown otherwise I'm good with it for now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: The two best sources we have for NFL player records, NFL.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com, both confirm that Adamaitis never played a down for the Washington Redskins (please see links above). Subject did play for the semi-pro Washington Presidents (not Redskins) in 1937; confusion is obvious. Moreover, what you're calling an "article" is not a reliable source; it's a privately maintained website of memorials and obituaries. Please review. WP:BEFORE homework has been done. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Records are notoriously hard to retrieve from the the pre-modern days of college, and even pro, football. Even harder now that Google News Archive is no longer operational. I'll investigate a bit and see what I can come up with. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: NFL.com's player information is excellent, dating back to the 1920s and including the various leagues that merged into the NFL, and that information is duplicated and expanded upon by Pro-Football-Reference.com. This article was built on a blurb from Find-a-Grave -- not a reliable source per WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Switch to Delete that's what I was looking for (and figured it was coming) but was willing to give some good faith on the original article. You're right, though... find-a-gravei is very weak indeed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've now reworked the article substantially and am persuaded that Adamaitis passes WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON. The guy led his team to the 1936 Orange Bowl and was the star of the game, passing for and receiving a touchdown pass in an upset over the SEC team. He was also a sufficiently elite player to be selected as the starting left halfback on the 1937 College Football All-Star team and led the only scoring drive for the college all-stars against the NFL champions. Although he did not play for the Redskins, he did play professional football for the Washington Presidents of the Dixie League. The Presidents were actually the first professional football team in the national capital. The Dixie League was fully professional, and there's a nice write up about the league here. Adamaitis was a starting halfback for the Presidents and led the team with his passing to the 1937 Dixie League championship. This should qualify him under WP:NGRIDIRON. IMO, and although it's VERY difficult to dig up newspaper coverage from the 1930s, he appears to have had sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not buying it without links to significant coverage, Cbl. I spent two hours going through everything produced by a "Bill Adamaitis" Google search. I saw nothing that qualified as both "independent" and "significant" -- and nothing more than a sentence or two here and there. We may have to fight about this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a "google" search is not an adequate check for someone who played in the 1930s. The vast majority of the material from that era is either off-line, hidden behind pay walls, and doesn't turn up on a google search. I think the coverage that has been revealed is plenty sufficient and, given his high level of achievement, there is almost certainly much more that is not easily retrieved. We can't agree on all of them. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, you've got multiple problems: The Washington Post articles all count as a single source, and as best I can tell, all constitute WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage. The Post was also local coverage for Catholic University, and is discounted at least somewhat in any event. There is no WP:NGRIDIRON presumption in favor of notability because the Dixie League was a minor league. Best independent sources for establishing notability are the random papers covering the 1936 Orange Bowl, and that coverage seems like ROUTINE post-game coverage, too. This looks like what it is: an article stitched together from game coverage and non-independent sources. That works fine for a coach or professional player entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON, but we're stretching to do so under a full-blown WP:GNG analysis. It's not the worst I've seen, but we're stretching. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote "delete" on most college athlete afds, but Adamaitis ends up as a clear keep IMO. He achieved at the highest level of college football, but because it was the 1930s, coverage is harder to find. The coverage that has been found, from major daily newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Miami News', etc., goes beyond routine passing references. Those sources discuss Adamaitis as one of the game's leading passers, a recipient of national honors, and the star of many of the important games, including the 1936 Orange Bowl and 1937 College All-Star game. If we were discussing someone who achieved at that level in college football of the past 10 years, the coverage would be ridiculously extensive and way easier to find. Still, plenty to pass GNG already IMO. As for the "Dixie League" being a "minor league", the difference between pro football leagues was often marginal in the 20s and 30s. The NFL had only 10 teams with players playing both offense and defense (the total NFL roster in 1937 was probably around 120 players compared to 1,000 today). Moreover, the Dixie League was a fully professional league, not "semi-pro" as you asserted above. There are so many modern players whose achievement level and press coverage don't warrant a separate article that I'm actually kind of surprised that you decided to single out someone like Adamaitis for an afd. Cbl62 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been reworked and expanded substantially. Serten (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Post overhaul I am satisfied this meets the criteria for inclusion. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 11:07, 9 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 03:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ogeyinka Merit Award of Excellence[edit]

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

I'll nominate this for AfD rather than PROD it. The alleged list of awardees(?) is illustrious but I can find nothing (apart from occasional LinkedIn profiles of personal biogs) about a "Ogeyinka Merit Award of Excellence" or London-based "African Film and Theatre Awards". Without any means of verifying its history (let alone prove it's of any note) I think this article needs to go. Hopefully someone will prove me wrong! Sionk (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It exists, but in lacking coverage this fails WP:N. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We do not normally allow award winner's categories, preferring to listify the winners. That indicates we should keep articles. However, there is so litle in this stub that I cannot judge whether this is a notable award. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. While I believe the award exists because it is listed in blogs, it doesn't have coverage in the media or books. Frmorrison (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths related to the 2014 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

While some of the individual deaths may be worth noting or covering in related articles, such as List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies, this article itself strings largely unconnected and non notable deaths to synthesize a topic. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails stand-alone list notability criteria as a topic with no significant coverage in reliable sources, never mind that it's original research. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons given by Philg88 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Into the controversies articles about the World Cup. A stand alone articles is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Synthesis and original research. Most of what is there is already covered elsewhere and the topic isn't notable enough to merit a standalone list. Would not recommend a redirect, since the article isn't old enough for it to be valuable in that sense. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's well-argued support for a merger with motorcycle club, but I think it would be overreaching to claim there is a consensus to do that. Further discussion about merges can take place on the relevant talk page, and if consensus is reached then the merge can be enacted. What this AfD has concluded is not to delete the article. NAC—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

List of Motorcycle Club terms[edit]

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

The contents of this article are sourced to two unreliable and/or crowdsourced websites. The title is so confusing as to be not worth redirecting to any article. Most of the slang here is associated with Outlaw motorcycle clubs, with a mix of some Motorcycle club terms, along with terms like "back door" associated with group riding, not necessarily clubs, and "ape hanger", which belongs under Custom motorcycle and Motorcycle handlebar. In other words, there are slang terms used in several distinct motorcycling subcultures, and little justification for lumping them into one glossary. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per glossary guideline at WP:SALAT. — Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Outlaw motorcycle club~~ some appropriate motorcycle-related article -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a merge to Motorcycle club would be a better target, because most of the terms do not pertain solely to outlaw motorcycle clubs. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 10:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Motorcycle club. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever is not RS-supported can be challenged/deleted per wp:v (and would not be merged). But AfD is not for cleanup. Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is for deleting titles that are invalid. "List of Motorcycle Club terms" is not a good article title, nor a good redirect. It shouldn't exist. There are several articles that could have glossaries added to them, but that's not relevant to the flaws in this title. Otherwise I would have just cleaned it up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? That's what "move" is for. Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move creates a redirect to the new page. You're free to disagree, but IMHO the title shouldn't exist as a redirect. And there's at least four subcultures that the new page could be about, and no obvious sourcing for that. So if someone wanted to create a whole new motorcycle-related list of terms, they could, but it shouldn't have any relationship to this current article, it's fatally flawed in it's premise. You might not share those opinions about the title and the value of the redirect, but AfD is the place for this discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request above is for deletion. There are in fact some RSs -- any non-RS material can be deleted per wp:v. You didn't articulate in your deletion request what you now say you are seeking. And I'm not even sure that goal would be an appropriate reason to bring this to AfD. And none of the !voters so far, not surprisingly, are !voting for what you now suggest, but never articulated before, is your goal. None of the above move or merge !votes would result in what you most recently articulated as your goal. Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't know what is the point of this list. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There is a discussion under way at Talk:List of Motorcycle Club terms suggesting this be simply renamed to e.g. Glossary of motorcycling with an appropriate preamble to make it inclusive of various subcultures. I think this would satisfy all sides presented here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content to Motorcycling or eq., see List of Latin phrases for why DICT is not relevant. --Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beatz[edit]

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

Biography of a record producer. There are numerous mentions of him in the form of recording credits in publications such as Billboard and Spin, but I could not find any reliable sources that cover him in any depth. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 20:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:MUSICBIO, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree entirely with MrX. --Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:COMPOSER for "Always Strapped". 78.18.13.94 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)— 78.18.13.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry he was the producer, not the composer or the lyricist. WP:COMPOSER does not apply. --Bejnar (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Producers as it relates to hip hop production, are also co-composers of the song, which is reflected in the related album's liner notes. However, I would say Delete. This producer has not received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to be worthy of their own article at this point per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in hip hop the producer is the composer of the musical track ("the beat", hence this producer's name). This is confirmed by the credits in this case. STATic does not deny that WP:COMPOSER is met but for some reason decides to apply other guidelines but not the one that is clearly met? And will Bejnar now return a third time to !vote Keep? Lol. "Hope is the thing with feathers…" 78.19.26.160 (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting one point of WP:COMPOSER does not warrant a keeping of the article if they do not meet WP:GNG. STATic message me! 08:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal opinion unsupported by guidelines (site-wide consensus). WP:N is explicit: notability is presumed if "it meets either the general notability guideline…or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". 78.19.26.160 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question How distinctive for each song is the beat in hip-hop? Does it vary considerably from song to song? --Bejnar (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By beat, the IP editor means the overall instrumental of the song. "Beat" is slang for the instrumental, every song's beat or instrumental is different. However, producing one single notable song does not warrant the producer meeting the relevant notability guidelines as notability is not inherited from the song. STATic message me! 08:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, the little here does not encourage me to change my opinion that the article should be deleted. More is necessary in coverage, and partial credit for one charted song, is not enough. --Bejnar (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER says otherwise. It is one of "the relevant notability guidelines". 78.19.26.160 (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Not true here. You cannot build a pyramid with one brick. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply wrong. See my July 26 reply to STATic. You're quoting a note appended to musicbio 1—that is the criterion which restates the GNG for WP:MUSIC! 78.19.26.160 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That note is also at Wikipedia:Notability (music) of which WP:COMPOSER is a part, and directly refers to composers. --Bejnar (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails th notability guidelines.Forbidden User (talk) 17:13, 12 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tide: Siege[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cancelled pulp science fiction trilogy. No references, no notability. Previously nominated for deletion in 2005, and since then no material changes have been made to the article. Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and never published. Frmorrison (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 3 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Knightfall Trilogy[edit]

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

Cancelled pulp science fiction book. Not notable in any regard, fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was never published and the reasons it was cancelled isn't unique. Frmorrison (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediatech Africa[edit]

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

Non notable IMO, just another trade show. Written like a promotional piece Gbawden (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find only a few passing event mentions, nothign substantial that would indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't able to find additional sources that would evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:10, 11 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 03:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lea-Anna[edit]

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

Article appears to the the work of a COI editor and virtually an orphan. Appears to fail all of our notability criteria for musicians, for example I can't find any information on even the slightest chart success as you might expect and there just seems to be very little coverage in any sources. Has at least released one album so might be notable one day, but two are required Shakehandsman (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ENT and separately does not meet WP:GNG. I have looked for sources but have failed to find anything significant. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:44, 3 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 01:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopper (rap)[edit]

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

The subject is a term, not a subgenre, and all of the sources do not mention a genre called "chopper". Koala15 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination argument would be true if Rock was not a genre. O, and look, it is a term, too. And it might be true if the sentence, "the festival will feature the guitar- and drumbeat-driven music of Rock" was not implicit evidence of the existence of the Rock genre. However, as can be seen, both of these arguments are basically garbled versions of WP rules. Confused? Consider the sentence, "Tech N9ne goes around the world to find the best “choppers” or wicked fast rappers" So, rappers whose lyrics are "wickedly" fast are Choppers. And it is indeed a genre, as rap songs themselves, as well as reliable sources, all refer to it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not agree with Anarchangel's reasoning, which seem to be that any term used to describe music is a genre, but honestly the whole issue of genre here is a red herring. The question here is not whether it is a genre, but whether it is a topic deserving of an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG is what we should be concerned with, not definitions of genre. — Gwalla | Talk 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that was another reason why i nominated it, i probably should have mentioned that. Koala15 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too think the issue isn't whether it's a genre either. Anyway, if it does stand, there's a credible source with a few references to the "style" here: "20 Of Hip-Hop’s Fastest Rappers" at XXL.com. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There is no reason to delete this page. The sources listed may not call it a "sub-genre" but several listed sites on several internet search engines clearly define it as a specific style of rap, known for the speed with which the artist conveys his words. And that alone makes it a sub-genre of rap, which is an extension of hip-hop. It would be like taking a gansta rap....this is the start of "book burning." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.34.183.218 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please post links to your sources so we can see if this passes the general notability guideline. And also, please stay civil. Accusing people of book-burning over an AfD nomination is unlikely to sway them to your side, or to convince the closing admin. — Gwalla | Talk 21:23, 5 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 01:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Chadwick (radio)[edit]

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

I see a run of the mill business executive who might possibly be famous for 15 minutes WP:BLP1E, and not a great deal else. Well, nothing else. Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the number of seemingly endless Pacifica executives who tried and as usual, failed to execute duties to manage Pacifica; as usual with a lot of the Pacifica and WBAI articles, no real easy way to find notability or clarity on her. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That an executive is perceived as being "run of the mill" or one of "seemingly endless Pacifica executives" are not valid reasons for deletion; rather, what counts is the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There is substantial coverage of Chadwick here and here and here and here in this book and in here in this other book and here which easily meets the GNG guideline. The current article has some issues but these can be improved.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 9 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 03:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGen: Kerk vir 'n Nuwe Generasie[edit]

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

he article is a WP:Vanispamcruftisment about a non-notable subject. Similar to the deletion of Hatfield Christian Church at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hatfield_Christian_Church Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- My impression for the article is that this is about the youth congregation of a single local church; if so it is likely to be NN. If it were the youth wing of a whole denomination, I would take the opposite view. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and most of the content is not encyclopedic anyway. – Fayenatic London 08:25, 5 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 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Patterson[edit]

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

~~advertising~~Blatant selfpromo. One big list of "I have worked with ..." but almost nothing about the guy himself. The Banner talk 16:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't advertising. It's a bit of a mess, but could potentially be fixed by editing. There are plenty of sources around, e.g. Billboard: confirms longtime working partnership with Bill Cosby, producing Cosby's album, and work with Alicia Keys and LL Cool J, Book: work on Miles Davis' Amandla album, New York Times: Confirms that he wrote the score for the film Fastpitch, another book confirming his work with Miles Davis, Book: Producer on Melvin van Peebles Ghetto Gothic album, anothert book, Billboard: confirms production on Ghetto Gothic. These were just the first ones that came up in a GBooks search. I'm not suggesting these are 'significant' coverage, but per WP:BEFORE we would need to look at all of the available sources on the subject (searching also on 'Billy "Spaceman" Patterson' and 'William "Spaceman" Patterson') to see if the subject is notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Also appears to have been credited as 'Billy Patterson'. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. So I have changed the nomination from advertising to blatant selfpromo. The Banner talk 19:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the subject were determined to be notable (and Michig makes a good point), the current article is such a mess that one would really need to erase the text and start over. Per WP:TNT, I'd delete it for that alone. If anyone wants to try to find sources proving notability, it would be best to start from scratch. --Larry (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly he has worked with a number of notable artists but none of the sources provide in-depth coverage - the mentions are fleeting at best. This is an article (if one could call it that) about a musician who has apparently neither made a chart listed solo release, nor made a concert tour, nor received any awards, nor independently made a significant impact on the music scene. A plethora of such sources does not notability make. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, and the article is, as per nominator, a blatant self promo per WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. Not averse to stubbing to the first sentence if, and only if, some substantial sources about the subject can be found, but I can't see regular Wikipedia editors spending time salvaging it, so otherwise, yes: WP:TNT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep i found some better sources and cleaned up the article, but he has so many casual references it is hard to tell MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of him before I came across this nomination, but I found enough sources (now in the article), I believe, to meet WP:MUSICBIO: #1, #4, #6, and #7. I am One of Many (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources, more to be found, he's done plenty of work and passes several points at WP:MUSIC AppleInYourEye (talk) 14:24, 8 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) 05:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of marathon races[edit]

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

I believe this is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. It's impossible to list all world marathons (there are over 1,100 in the US alone 1). Even if it were possible, such a list would filled with non-notable races. We have a page for the World Marathon Majors and the IAAF label races, so I don't see what value this adds. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant percentage of the entries on this list have articles and a large majority are referenced in some way. The list has 73 references and 455 external links. One editor's failure to see "value" is not a valid argument for deletion. I would not oppose a stricter inclusion standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references, no matter how plentiful, don't establish the notability of the overall topic. Many of the references simply show that an unremarkable marathon exists. Failing WP:GNG is a valid argument for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over 250 of these marathons have Wikipedia articles, and a list of notable marathons is completely justified by policy and practice. A moderate number of red links are usually allowed in list articles. Please feel free to delete any items from the list that you believe to be non-notable. Tightening up the list is fine. Deleting it isn't, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suggest that the real issue is that this topic is too broad, per WP:SALAT. As a result it violates WP:LISTCRUFT #6: "The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable". Also, just because items in the list are notable doesn't make the list itself notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the nominator. The list is too broad to be informative. My experience with this is List of half marathon races where the notability criteria referenced at the top of that article has not prevented race organizers from listing non-notable local races in an apparent attempt to gain exposure for their events. I monitor the page and periodically go through the list to remove those that do not meet the criteria, but I seem to be the only one who attempts to maintain it. It does take a fair amount of time since I feel the burden has been placed on me with every new addition to find an official website and try to determine how long the event has been in existence, how many entrants are in it, and whether or not it includes an elite field (see WP:NTRACK). I don't intend to maintain List of marathon races and there is no reasonable expectation that other Wikipedians will do so either. I'm abstaining because I think it could be maintained if trimmed to include only those races that have Wikipedia articles. Location (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like said above there are soooo many marathon races, it is hard to add all. But i have no problem with such a list just including official IAAF races or something like that. Kante4 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid topic with clear scope. Totally agree that this needs to be better managed. While it's true that over 1000 were held in the U.S. alone in 2013, this misses the fact that four continents probably held fewer races than that between them. It may be worthwhile splitting American races off into List of marathon races in the United States (about 1/3 races listed so far). SFB 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Marathons and subcategories therein. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP. If the list becomes too long, content can always be split into new articles (e.g. by country). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BuzcastTV - The Social Television Network[edit]

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

11,000 results, but mostly facebook, linkedin. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought twinkle has already submitted, but thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another YouTube wannabe.--Rpclod (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless this can be merged with they type of site it is, which isn't a video sharing site but a alternative TV site more similar to Hulu it should be deleted. WebWeaver64 (talk) 22:36, 5 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (large version)[edit]

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

Please note that I am not proposing the large table to be deleted, which exists separately at Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells); I am only proposing that this article be deleted. Firstly, the content in this article apart from the table itself is very minimal and is already included at the main Periodic table article. Furthemore, "Periodic table (large version)" is an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia template, not a Wikipedia article. This template is a great template, but it should not have its own dedicated article in the Wikipedia main space. It might be decided to have the template transcluded in a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't need to happen; the template would be sufficiently accessible if it was solely in the template space. We shouldn't create articles for templates solely so casual users will be likelier to stumble upon those templates. There are other similar articles that exist solely to support periodic table templates and these articles should probably be deleted as well, although I think it best for them to have separate discussions so they can be considered on a one-by-one basis. Neelix (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query How would the current entry at Periodic_table#Layout be changed to preserve the current functionality of "For a larger version, see Periodic table (large version)"? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link would simply be switched from Periodic table (large version) to Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells). We could also pipelink it. Neelix (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the linked page then show all the template documentation? Are there currently any other examples where users are directed to template space? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to the Template:Periodic table (18 columns, large cells) page, I see the section heading "Template documentation", but the section is empty. I don't know if there are other articles that link to templates, but I don't see much precedent for linking to template-only articles either. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm going to !vote Keep as I do not see this proposed change as an improvement to the encyclopedia. See WP:IFITAINTBROKE, not that I think you are trying to waste anyone's time. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Request procedural close~~ see note. Few days earlier, the nom initiated a merge proposal for this page at Talk:Periodic_table [15]. I engaged in that discussion. Then, within three days, this TfD is opened without any reference to the -still open of course- merge proposal. Now we have two discussions opened about the same page. It also shows that the nom is not clear in their actual agenda. See also WP:FORUMSHOP. Nothing of this is to suggest bad faith by anyone, but this way no good discussion thread can grow. (I assume that a procedural -speedy- closure here allows the merge thread to proceed and conclude). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Request still stands.~~ -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OK now, struck. The concurring merge proposal now is closed as "no merge". -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~ procedural issue is resolved. ~~for procedural reasons now, as described above (procedural close). We cannot make a fruitful discussion split over two places. It decomposes any arguing.~~ -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the merger discussion was over; consensus seemed clearly against the merger, but deletion was proposed. I removed the merger tag from the article and started this discussion. This is not forum-shopping; it is moving the discussion to the correct forum, which is this one. Neelix (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "impression" is not enough to start a second forum. As it is now, the process is broken. Arguments are idle. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator of the merger. Surely I can withdraw my nomination. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which you did not. In your 17:16 post here, you yourself concluded that there was a consensus (against merger). Then to "withdraw" the proposal because you did not like the outcome is gaming the system. This procedural mess must be cleaned up first before sensible arguments can be made. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't withdraw because I didn't like the outcome; I withdrew because I did like the outcome. I was convinced by the objectors that a merger is not the appropriate action in this case. That is why I made this alternate proposal of deletion. Neelix (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, or whatever. You made it a mess. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal has closed ('no merge'). This subthread is moot then. I will argue (a keep) way below. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly object Keep. Changing a link from the article space to a link to the template space is clearly not okay. The article space is where people read articles; the template space is not. We would lose this table as a table for readers. The template has many non-reader-oriented uses, but only one article that uses it (and it is wanted to be deleted). No reader views anymore for this "great template" (to quote the nominator). See also Wikipedia:Template namespace (where does it say that a template can be made to be used by readers for reading? what if I missed something?).--R8R (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_{(also see this template: you can find articles with less text than this one has and then either agree with this article's existence or try to delete them too (for example). Either way, it will be useful if it is correct.)}

The Iman-Burluk River example is a very different case; that article is a stub that has the potential to grow into a full article complete with much more than simply a template. The Periodic table (large version) article, however, exists solely to support a template; it is not intended to develop into a real article. Why is linking to the template space not OK? I don't see any guidelines against it, and the "Referencing templates" section of the guideline to which you refer suggests that such linking is OK. Neelix (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The guideline does not say linking from the article space to the template space is okay. It says, "if you want to refer to a template." That doesn't mean, "if you want to show a reader something." I use the described {{tl}} template on talk pages, by which I refer to templates. You may be used to Wiki enough to easily navigate between spaces, but that is not a reason to expect the same from everyone who just came to read an article. Moreover, if you read the whole guideline, you won't find a place it refers to the article space, even among the functions of templates in the lead section. You can see template space pages have documentation, which is clearly not meant to be read by a reader -- there is no reason the template space would be used for reading.

Regarding the article as such, I would argue this is a FL (how could I forget, thanks, Chris), which survived an attempt of de-featuring. Besides, the list (which is a graphical list) as is right now is great and useful for readers (I liked it when I first saw it a couple of years ago). As a list, it is clearly fine to exist.--R8R (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the article should be kept because 1) the guidelines don't explicitly state that linking to templates is OK, and 2) the template is useful. I would respond to these objections by saying 1) the guidelines don't state that linking to templates is not OK, and 2) deleting the article does not delete the template. Furthermore, WP:USEFUL indicates that "It's useful" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; even though WP:USEFUL is an essay, it is correct in asserting that many useful things do not belong in the main space of Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The guidelines don't state that linking to templates is not OK, you say. Which is true, but I must also say something is explicitly said to be not OK only if (exceptions apply, but the general rule stands) if many people think it is okay, but it's not. Saying what is correct is, however, much more important, given this is a guideline. The reasons to use templates are listed; if linking from the main space was okay, it would be mentioned. I have to repeat myself, but think about documentation placed on every template page: readers are clearly not meant to read it, and it would not be placed there in first place if the template pages were for reading.

2) Deleting the list doesn't delete the template. True, but you forget (again) that the template is no longer accessible for readers via means a reader should be expected to be able operate with (that is, type in the name of an article to the search box above. Not clearly browsing between spaces, which may be trivial for you and me, but not everyone, they may lack knowledge about spaces). Linking there isn't okay either (see just above). No way out for an average Joe uncommon with how Wiki works (most people come here to read, not to edit (they may know they can do it, but expect no more to make sure everyone understands you)

Also, I see you're going a bit formalist, but actually imagine yourself having never interacted with Wiki. What would be better for you: Getting the table, with some small introductory text, a list of references, and another add-on compact picture of the table; or a plain table with some info you should not use under a title more difficult to memorize and type?--R8R (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are a lot of pages that link to the template, see for yourself. This article's main purpose is to represent it to the reader (Wiki is written for them, readers) the best.

Comment - since no one has mentioned it: this is a Featured List. It is not an article per se, and it is not your usual list format, but is very effective for the information it presents. Chris857 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing attention to this fact, Chris. I would add that I think it very unlikely that this article would meet the featured list criteria in 2014; the last FLRC discussion for this article was in 2008 and the criteria have become significantly more stringent in recent years. I also see no way of improving this article so that it will pass a FLRC, as this article exists solely to support the template. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This list article receives nearly a quarter of a million hits a year. I don't see how its deletion (effectively a relegation to the template space) would improve our encyclopedia. Sandbh (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: - Please state either "Keep" or "Delete" - Simply putting "Object/Oppose" means absolutely nothing & is the quickest way for your comment to be dismissed!, Cheers..

~~Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. A very useful page that receives thousands of page hits per month (20,373 in July 2014). In this case, deletion will not improve the encyclopedia; rather, it would diminish it. It is also classified as a featured list. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless we have "featured template" reviews--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second Northamerica1000 WP:IAR call. It is an absolutely encyclopedic reference table. Think of it as the colour plates that some paper encyclopedias insert within their volumes. We should have more of these, not less. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, about the most textbook case of WP:IAR I have ever seen. This is clearly incredibly useful to readers, and deleting it would harm the encyclopedia by removing useful information. Northamerica1000 sums it up quite well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the nom proposes to delete the article, and to keep the template. This is a non-realistic outcome, because an unused content template is not part of content space. It can not be reached by a reader! (And a sidenote: one cannot print/export/pdf a template from template space). Second, once the template is orphaned, it is up for deletion (as an 'unused template').

Then, the page has an encyclopedic reason. This presentation of the periodic table is most common (having extra information per element cell). It is a pity we cannot show it in one screenwidth usually. But it is the form used in many science classrooms, as a wallpaper. Improvements are possible & welcome, but are not part of this AfD, and are not a pre-requisition to keep. (Note: I've worked extensively on this table last few years). -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of fine rules at Wikipedia, but IAR says that when a page is obviously useful, it is useful and should be kept (and notability is clearly not a problem). The periodic table is a gigantic topic in science and many readers like to study the detail on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 8 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSOG Limited[edit]

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

"HSOG Limited" - 5 results. Fails WP:NOTABILITY for company. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No policy based rationale presented by the nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of notability is a valid proposed rationale for deletion. —Mz7 (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is A lack of notability not a valid reason ? ... Lugnuts please AGF. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought twinkle has already submitted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable 3rd party sources found for this firm, under either its new or former name. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:46, 3 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faresaver[edit]

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

A non-notable small local company without significant secondary coverage beyond the local paper. Fails WP:GNG. Charles (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 22:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although does need additional cites Mo7838 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs better sourcing but that can be fixed anyday . –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.....someday.....never? The article is over a year old and shows no indication of meeting WP:CORP or WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a few sources but my google search results are shite as per usual. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ref 1 neither mentions Faresaver nor supports the text it follows. The others only mention the company in passing or are news stories which quote members of the company. None of this meets the requirements for in depth coverage set out in WP:CORPDEPTH. If this article had gone through the Articles for Creation process it would have failed. Those who want to keep it need to come up with some evidence instead of just WP:ILIKEIT.Charles (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. I've supplied a couple of refs which are perfectly fine, and 2. This isn't a case of "I Like it", It's a case of making the effort to source the article ~~which btw you haven't even attempted.~~ –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You do not know if I have looked for sources. (I have). The point you are still missing is that the sources given do not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH.Charles (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove article has always been patchy, ambiguous, out of date (virtually impossible to keep up to date) and unverifiable something i have argued about for a long time with the original author. User:Nb444444

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of time to improve it, and it appears that there is significant coverage, it just hasn't made its way into the article as yet. Jacona (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage? Please enlighten us.Charles (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Is a small local bus operator notable enough to need an article? I have considerable doubts about that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, Quite alot of small bus operators here have articles and all are notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)~~ Struck since this is sadly gonna turn into a silly argument i think.[reply]

Having articles does not prove they are notable. Faresaver has an article without any evidence of notability. Each case has to be looked at depending on sources.Charles (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::I never said they were, Except there is evidence of notability Charles and you know it, Nominating articles you simply dont like 1 isn't the way to go. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We keep hearing assertions of notability but zero evidence is produced.Charles (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the "references" don't mention the company, one is by it, one has nothing in the way of signficant coverage, the fourth has little. It shouldn't take more than a passing familiarity with our policies to identify which is which. I wasn't able to find more, but I'm happy to investigate whatever little is found. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious fail to GNG.Forbidden User (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since significant coverage has not been forthcoming. If someone wants to take it on as a project they can ask for Wikipedia:Userfication, or just copy it to their own computer now and bring it back when enough reliable sources with significant coverage have been added so that it qualifies under WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 12 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. Chris troutman and anyone else who wants to improve the article may go to it. Deor (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economic History Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG/WP:ORG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is an academic book that describes the origins of the group in the late 1930s and its founding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Although Cullen328 points out a possibly independent source, this article can't stay as is. If there's consensus to delete I'd like to have this moved into my userspace so I can rehab it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Its Journal of Economic History, Economic History Review, and Explorations in Economic History are the three most important economic hisotry jounrals. The subject of this article is the publisher of this journal and is the American equivalent of (British) Economic History Society. At worst, merge to its Journal (or vice versa). I expect there is the usual problem that applies to almost all learned societies that the main sources of information are internal ones to the association. However, newletters and reports are produced to inform members about the Association's activities and can be expected to be true, even if they are not independent. That ought to be enough for WP:V. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to The Journal of Economic History per Peterkingiron. Needs cleanup, not deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBall (company)[edit]

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

no indication of notability. "5% of the handset markt" is not susbtantial importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject seems to pass WP:GNG, I added +3 refs and a custom Google search engine gives more favourable results. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the company might not have been discussed much in depth, their some products do get coverage. Like their mobile with special SOS button, their bluetooth headset and their tablets have reviews too. [16], [17], [18]. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, it should be moved to their stylized name form as iBall (company). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Company. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 08:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: famous brand. - Vishhal.kalra (Abohar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.61.226 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The sources provided by Dharmadhyaksha are enough to establish notability. Passes WP:GNG.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:41, 9 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. I do not see any consensus for keeping a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nero (video game)[edit]

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

This article is not notable, information is scarce on it's existence at all and updates on game may not be happening. WhereAmI (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (revert to previous redirect). WP:BEFORE bringing an article to AfD, may want to try having a preemptive discussion. It's curious that you would stub an article from a redirect and then bring it to AfD—you're the only one who contributed content, and all of it was unsourced... Anyway, as I reverted the stub, it's too soon to stub this article. A redirect to a list of games is cheap, especially as a valid search term. WP:VG/RS press coverage of the announcement: [19][20][21]. Recommend withdrawal of nom czar ♔ 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I tried to contribute information but couldn't find good information so I came here to get it deleted. A redirect to the previous Xbox One list is also the wrong list, it's a WiiU game according to your sources.WhereAmI (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the redirect to the Wii U list. It was only redirected to Xbox One since it was announced as an Xbox One game at E3. Either way, we're looking at a redirect and not outright deletion and thus AfD is the wrong place for the discussion czar ♔ 04:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That could be done, but I still think it should be deleted as its not even a noteworthy redirect being added for the anyone searching the term Nero. WhereAmI (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would go to WP:RfD then. It is very, very common practice to set up redirects to list entries ({{R to list entry}}) czar ♔ 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable (spent most of its short life as a redirect), but useless as a redirect because of the disambiguation and has no obvious redirect target (List of XBox One games? List of WiiU games? List of (other platforms) games?). Ansh666 18:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't leave a redirect behind. Some things are worth appreciation but not a Wikipedia article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick DeCarbo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One season, no awards, no records. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - @Srich32977: Per WP:NGRIDIRON, any professional football player who has played one regular season professional game in a top-tier league such as the NFL is presumed to be notable for purposes of a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Similar specific notability guidelines have also been adopted for basketball (WP:NBASKETBALL), baseball (WP:NBASEBALL), football/soccer (WP:NFOOTY), and most other major sports (see, generally, WP:NSPORTS). In this case, the subject played in all 11 regular season games of the 1933 season; he more than satisfies the specific notability guideline for American football players. While I have quibbled with such one-game notability rules in the past, I also recognize that this is the well established WP consensus. I suggest that you may want to withdraw this AfD nomination in light of that established consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I shall close as a speedy. – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We learn by doing. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirm that DeCarbo played in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:13, 3 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. Michig (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Tachibana[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE notability guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 2 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there are any other facts, the subject clearly fails to meet notability of the project.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the subject is notable as a Japanese-American internee who nevertheless volunteered to join the USAF and was killed while on active service. There are numerous other pages on Japanese-American former internees which are of limited notability and few references, such as: Hideo Date, Kaneji Domoto, Henry Fukuhara, Satoshi Hirayama, George Hoshida, Yamato Ichihashi, Tomoko Miho etc. and so I don't see why this page is singled out. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by OP – I did not single him out for AFD (I've been working on the BLP living backlog). When looking at his military record, it is not notable. The only feature which distinguishes him is the ethnicity and the way he was swept up into the camps. By comparison, look at the Japanese-American service in World War II. Overall, that is a notable topic. But we do not have a WP article for each of those 10,000 or so who served. Because Tachibana was very much post-WWII I do not think he meets notability standards. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being post-War is notable. The members of the 442nd RCT and other Japanese-Americans who served during WWII did so to prove that they were good Americans and not loyal to Japan at a time of national mobilisation, whereas there was no such imperative postwar. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I am very grateful for Mr. Tachibana's service and regret the gross imposition on Japanese-American internees, I do not think that this fact or the fact that similar articles have slipped through reviewers justifies the ongoing maintenance of this article.--Rpclod (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER and no other reason for notability. His ethnicity is utterly and completely irrelevant unless he was the first Japanese-American to have served as a pilot in the USAF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 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.