Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 August	6 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK #1 (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian True Orthodox Church[edit]

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

Shows no indication for significance. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep after I expanded and referenced it. Note that the references include three full-scale articles from major Serbian newspapers of Blic, Politika and Večernje Novosti from different years. Steve Lux, Jr., would you like to consider withdrawing the AfD? No such user (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Nomination was justified but the work since seems more than enough to justify keeping it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There is nothing significant about this article. No one cares about this church. It is simply uninteresting and a waste of space. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote twice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

None of those are valid reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. The nom reads a bit like an A7 argument, but the article at the time of nomination stated that this was a denomination, and denominations are normally kept. Also, congrats to User:No such user for article improvements. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Unscintillating, including complimenting User:No such user for improving. I rather agree that legitimate denominations deserve a Wikipedia article, but on the other hand anyone can say their tiny splinter church of 3 or 4 persons is a brand new denomination. It would help if there were some assertion of size, and IMHO there should be some minimum size for a denomination to be deemed legitimate as a denomination deserving Wikipedia coverage. Here i see neither assertion of big size nor assertion of tiny size, so i would err on side of keeping for now, pending evidence that it is tiny. --do ncr am 01:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This appears to be a denomination, not merely a local congregation. I have no idea of how significant it is, but it does not read to me as if it is all that small. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for weighing in. I would like to remove the deletion tag as many improvements have been made to the article since first being tagged. I appreciate the contributions and views of other editors. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:33, 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. I see no need to discuss this further. It's a SNOW close, and I am protecting against re-creation. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TruBrain[edit]

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

This subject has been on my Watchlist since an ongoing WP:SPI last year highlighted this job on eLance. It has now been created by an SPA which is obviously a throw-away account created for the purposes of creating this article. The sources are exactly what you'd expect to see under the circumstances - the barest of passing mentions in articles about other things. Nothing close to what is required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Also nothing close to what we would require from products making massive medical and scientific claims per WP:MEDRS. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This appears to be an advertisement or promotional article not worthy of Wikipedia. Thetechgirl (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. I am not being compensated by the company nor does this article make any medical claims. Pay close attention to the language of this article. Lastly, I am not a SPA. Priorityfootball (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had made no other contributions prior to creating this article. You have made a couple of minor edits to other articles since. The company in question has a history of paying people to come here, create account and then create articles/links related to them. You cam here, created an account and then created an article about them. The article quotes the company's medical claim in the opening paragraph. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NCORP with only one non-trivial source; the LA Business Journal source give TruBrain only a brief sentence in a list of other startups, and the CBS New York source is about smart pills in general with only a single sentence about TruBrain. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP: The three outside references provided give only a passing (one sentence or less) mention to TruBrain; no significant coverage. Fails WP:MEDRS; makes medical claims but no proper medical sourcing is provided. The company is only two years old and is promoting an unproven product. We should not have an article about it, period. Kudos to Stalwart for being so on top of this. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Stanton (journalist)[edit]

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

References do not establish notability of subject, lack of secondary sources on the individual. Broadly a collection of this individual's largely fringe viewpoints and circular sourcing to Stanton's own articles and op-eds. Falls into Wikipedia:No original research. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person who created this article in 2008 just edited this article and then left Wikipedia permanently and the sources don't really establish this journalists notability. The first point is not a good sign. --Artene50 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone starts an article and then stops editing has no bearing on the notability issue. Perhaps they died. ~~The link provided gives no useful information about the editor or John Stanton~~. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Noting that the comment no longer applies as Artene has corrected it to a user page. 18:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd have to put a bit more work into this but I think there's probably enough out there to establish that John Stanton is an independent investigative journalist and therefore to at least keep this as a stub, which states just that and then lists some of his works. See for example: this this, this, this and this (paragraph on Stanton's work) Given his prominence in the debates about Human Terrain System I think this would be helpful for Wikipedia readers. Lorelei (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I've called up these sources with only around 20 minutes searching. Working from my memory of sifting through the MASSES (there is literally masses of the stuff!) of material pertaining to HTS while editing the article, there are quite a few more out there. Lorelei (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see that he is a notable journalist, and as a seasoned editor in Philadelphia I can improve the article and add references. Give Lorelei and myself time to do the job.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Declaring a 'conflict' of interest, I had some involvement with Human Terrain Systems a few years ago. (I never had any connection with Stanton.) Based on my own experience (for what it is worth) I can say his articles were significant in their influence on the program. The sources in the article reflect this. And without looking at other books about HTS and military anthropology, I suspect his work has been cited by others. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Added note: Stanton is brought up several times in Christopher Lamb's book Human Terrain Teams ISBN 978-0988864207 published by The Institute of World Politics. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard House[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOK. Primary notability is centered around the fact that Mr House's book, The Kills, was longlist[ed]. Longlisting means that the book was one of a very long list of books from newish authors. I don't thing it's donates notability, merely the fact it was put in the list and discarded. Entering a competition is not the same as winning it. If found non-notable, then the The Kills article should be deleted. scope_creep talk 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of 13 authors longlisted for the 2013 Man Booker Prize, arguably the most illustrious literary prize aside from the Nobel Prize in Literature, seems notable enough for me. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The Kills was reviewed by The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent and other publications. Bruiser was reviewed by The New York Times and other publications. He wrote at least one other novel, Uninvited, but I think the above clearly points to notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no presentation of any awards won (nominations don't count). The reviews of his books don't count toward WP:GNG. He is not the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. N.B.: none of these reviews discuss the author:
- Thus, GNG is not relevant.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR: multiple published books with multiple published high-profile mainstream-media reviews. (As well as the ones listed above for The Kills, there are reviews of Uninvited on Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly at least, and it was novel of the week at the New Statesman.) @TonyTheTiger: It doesn't matter that we don't have articles discussing his hair color or dating preferences; he's notable as a writer and we have plenty of articles discussing his writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) is correct but only if we assume that each article is an island, which is something advocated for by WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and entirely gumpf. Applied to reality as opposed to the aberrant fantasies of some Wikipedians, we can come to a better understanding. This understanding is that the general consensus on this is that a page should actually exist. Biographical details might be a bit thin on the ground, and if he wants his WP:BLP WP:PRIVACY that's fine; we include what we can WP:V. A decent "biographical" article without major biographical details can be written consisting of a bibliography and references to book reviews. Some of the books themselves may also have articles. The key is understanding that this won't be an article like William Shakespeare in style but more like Shakespeare's plays with the odd bit of biographical info thrown in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:32, 6 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/snowball deletion, nonsense/fiction. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Mafia[edit]

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

Completely fictional Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:29, 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Huneidi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Totally non-notable. scope_creep talk 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no news results and google hits are all either from his companies or selling his book. No evidence of independent reliable coverage, not notable. BethNaught (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the sources nor search results show Amer Huneidi to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.Stesmo (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO, but not notable, insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTEBLP. Most references are related. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 13 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) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Light the Fire[edit]

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

Unable to find the song on any charts. Article was deleted via Prod and then recreated. This is from same editor and band as AfD Watch the Stars Fall. Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non notable song per WP:NSONG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the necessary coverage for WP:GNG, does not qualify under WP:NSONG. --Bejnar (talk) 00:26, 13 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. Extensive reliable sources found, some of which discuss the individual in their own right indicating this isnt simply inherited being formally "the last" Seddon ^talk 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James French (murderer)[edit]

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

Article about a murderer based on a rather complicated (and not verified) claim. Fails WP:CRIMINAL as far as I can see. At best (if someone thinks he has any claim to be the 'last') it should be redirected or merged somewhere, maybe Capital punishment in the United States. Sionk (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree the only thing that makes this notable is if he was the last, and that is disputed by another online article found here: ^[1] WebWeaver64 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.executedtoday.com/tag/furman-v-georgia/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~While I have no strong opinion on this since the relevant material could all be addressed in some parent article or list, the subject appears to squeak by WP:GNG.~~[Stricken since there appears to be non-trivial coverage in at least three sources.-Location (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)] French's claim to fame is that he was the last executed in Oklahoma, not in the United States, prior to Furman v. Georgia. This factoid is verifiable and has been reiterated in numerous news sources (e.g. [1], [2]). As for the order, Luis Monge was the last prior to Furman (gassed in Colorado), Aaron Mitchell (murderer) was the second to last (gassed in California), and French was the third to last (electrocuted in Oklahoma).[3] In addition to having been the last person electrocuted prior to Furman [see previous reference] and last person electrocuted in Oklahoma,[4] French was the only person executed in the US in 1966.[5] The assertion that he strangled a cellmate because he was "chicken" to commit suicide was also mentioned in a 1966 article about the APA's position on capital punishment.[6] I found an academic source indicating that he may not have killed the cellmate if Oklahoma did not have the death penalty.[7] His mocking last words have also received coverage in various books. Location (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, there are sources that discuss the subject unrelated to "last in Oklahoma prior to Furman". He was used as example that death penalty may not be a deterrent in hearings of a subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary discussing capital punishment.[8] He appears to have received non-trivial coverage in an article in Oklahoma Bar Journal; I cannot read the entire publication but it runs from at least page 2645[9] to 2650[10]. Additional non-trivial coverage in another book[11] as well as in the online version of The Oklahoman.[12] This material was published well past 1966, demonstrating some sort of lasting notability per secondary sources. Here is a 1966 news report: [13] Primary source appeals court decisions, not sufficient by themselves to determine notability: [14], [15], [16] Location (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. and verifiable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I nominated this after seeing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Coburn (criminal) (2nd nomination) which resulted ina redirect of an article about a criminal with a national claim to be the "last". In the case of French we have only a Oklahoma claim and only the "last" until the next one, in 1980. Surely this is a very tenuous basis indeed for a full article about a one-time criminal? Are we going to accept similar 'last until the next one' articles for every state? Sionk (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 17:39, 6 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. Perhaps a slightly controversial close decision however given the cleanup of OR and POV from the article, arguments about original research are somewhat nullified. The article seems to meet requirements in its new form. The article will also be semi-protected to limit the addition of unsourced material Seddon ^talk 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of secret police organizations[edit]

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

This article contains information that that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and much of the content contains original theories and conclusions or fringe theories.

Anonymous editors constantly add US organisations to the article, like the FBI and NSA, without supporting citations: many others have no citations to support such inclusion. I have only been able to properly verify a handful of obvious examples: even including supporting quotes in citations.
There are no references to one or many articles of literature that gives a solid non-literal definition of a "secret police", which was necessary to determine for sure which organisations meet the criteria with minimal controversy. Secret police itself lacks the crucial citations to support the article under discussion.
With the failure to find crucial citations, this article may never satisfy WP:NPOV or clear the WP:OR issue, hence making it eligible for a deletion discussion. Marianian^(talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom, and per the description on the article talk page: "list of domestic police or intelligence organizations in countries we don't like". Impossible to ensure completeness, impossible to ensure neutrality, and impossible to define... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of this is OR or simply opinion. It would be difficult to call some of these agencies "police". I can't see this list ever being sourced correctly or maintaining neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources specifically about secret police, so no criteria for inclusion or any external sources for a definitive list. So it is biased "original research." TFD (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/repurpose. Considering Wikipedia's culture, ethos, history, and role on the internet, it's right that we should maintain a list of government organisations who're authorised to conduct domestic surveillance without a warrant.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that would satisfy LISTN regardless of our culture, ethos, history, and role on the internet. I can imagine a list of organisations that have been labelled as "secret police" by some reliable source (we allowed, after a discussion at, IIRC, one of the village pump pages a list of "weird" buildings, a concept that was admitted to be incapable of definition), or that satisfy a literal definition of that expression. The unreferenced entries are going to have to be sourced or removed regardless of the outcome. James500 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I should point out that unlike bizarre buildings, political lists like this are a lot more controversial particularly after the surveillance scandals. It is not that Wikipedia should not cover secret police stuff but the article alone is strewn with so many unverifiable allegations that it looks fundamentally biased. --Marianian^(talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to go along with the idea that if a "reliable source" calls them "secret police", then they are secret police. We're all smart enough to know that there are often some political interests at play in situations like this and not all reliable sources are willing to be neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My provisional view is that this list could be kept but stripped of unreferenced content and semi-protected to prevent the ongoing insertion of unsourced content. That would leave a list of organisations that someone has labelled as "secret police". It is not clear that would be open to any objections (apart perhaps from political sensitivity) that could not be levelled at List of bizarre buildings (which does not attempt to define "bizarre"), and we did have a discussion at village pump that suggested there was no consensus for the deletion of such lists. James500 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It would require a fundamental rebuild even if it was to survive deletion. I see that on this occasion, citations from reliable sources, and indef semi-protection, are necessary to add a level of reassurance to why one organisation was included, and to date I have failed on many alleged entries (I am not sure about your previous attempts to verify some of them). --Marianian^(talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to create an alternative list article, there is still no need to keep this one. I suggest though that they may have the same problems. Security intelligence services in Western countries, and they all have them, have been called "secret police." And lots of Western countries (in the past at least) exempted police from requiring warrants when national security was involved. And requiring a warrant is not a real safeguard. The same government that hires the police picks the judges who authorize warrants. TFD (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why Western countries should be automatically exempt from inclusion? James500 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is original research. If there is a different list with a different title and different list members, we should still delete this one. Spumuq (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The several entries that have been referenced are not, strictly speaking, original reasearch. I am going to remove the unreferenced material so that we can see what we are really dealing with. James500 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. James500 (talk) 21:00, 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. Even though the Keeps were in the minority, I looked at the keep arguments to see if there was some strong policy-based argument which might overcome the raw numbers. Unfortunately, they were more this is important than here's the references to support WP:N, so closing this as a clear delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display[edit]

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

Single aircraft used for military displays are raarely notable and not that uncommon. Most air forces have at least one solo display team that appear at air shows and displays and like the other solo aircraft I cant see this one being notable MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am against the deletion of this page, because the Hornet display is seen by the Swiss air force as equal team like the PC-7Tam or the Patrouille suisse. The Hornet Team is since 1997 a official display team of the swiss air Force an is displaying a aerobatic programm inside and outside switzerland at many events.If it doesent fit to the aerobatic teams its still no need to delet it it fit still in the category "swiss air force". Please have a look at the official swiss air force page (or just google it9 to see that it is an important part of the swiss air force. Please see also some of my arguments for the same at the deletion discusion of the "Super Puma Display Team

thanks FFA P-16 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Please have a look at the Swiss Air Force Page about the F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display [17][reply]

Programm ( http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/de/home/aktuell/airshows.html

This are my points against deleting it.

On the other hand i like to rise the question: If single aircraft used for military displays dosent fit into the category Aerobatic teams, would it not bee good to create a category for them? ther are quite a few single aircraft "Teams" who are since years part of airshows (Ramex Delta (2 French M2000), Solo Türk (F-16) ,Belgian Air Component F-16 Solo Display Team, Rafale solo Display Team [18] HAF Demo Team [19] and so one. FFA P-16 (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N, no third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with any other subject, notability is determined by in-depth coverage of the subject matter in third-party published reliable sources. I can see no evidence of such coverage in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well enough and important enough to stay in the Category Swiss Air Force.

FLORAKO (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have add 3-party ref [20][21][22] [23] FFA P-16 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisements for clocks while independent of the team, are not usually considered to be reliable sources, nor is a fan page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep@Bejnar. But had you seen that this with theclock is not just some page, its from the Aero Club switzerland. the organisation for all interests of aviatic (civil &military) of switzerland. one is the homepage of fightersqad17 (its run by members of Sq17, not just by some fans). The page of herman keist is seen as valid source about swiss air force topics in diverse wikipedias in differend languages. And here one more [24] [25] [26] [27] FFA P-16 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Afd is not a vote, but is instead based on reasoned discussion, it is nonetheless considered inappropriate to bold more than one resolution per username. Hence, I have stricken FFA P-16's second keep entry. --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 13 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.

Note: while it did not affect the outcome of the discussion, it should be noted that FLORAKO is confirmed sock of FFA P-16. Mike V • Talk 19:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Panjang Plaza[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it is advertising and doesn't follow wikipedia policies. Jab843 (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No reliable independent sourcing, and the article does seem a touch too promotional. Reyk _YO! 05:49, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis virus[edit]

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

Article about a non-existent virus, which appears to be giving deliberately incorrect information. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis has been shown to be caused by Enterovirus 70 and Coxsackievirus A24, but this article purports to discuss a third causative virus, despite the fact that no source lists such a third cause. It has been suggested that this article should be redirected to acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis but two editors (myself and the article's original author) disagree with this redirect, for diametrically opposite reasons: I because I don't believe this is a valid redirect, because the existence of the redirect still implies the existence of a virus by this name; he because he refuses to let go of the validity of this article (see this reply to my query on his user talk page). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if there is no consensus to redirect) - given what the sources say, summarised accurately by WikiDan61 above, the article would seem to almost be a work of fiction. Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis is a symptom/condition caused by one of two viruses, possibly more. It is not a virus in and of itself. Right? St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question—This 1974 article treats the AHC virus as a distinct entity, but by 1975 this article had made the enterovirus 70 association. Trawling through google scholar I'm seeing a few other cites that would support the hypothesis that, due to a more precise identification, the "AHC virus" name started to be supplemented by "enterovirus 70" around that time. Is that an accurate (albeit superficial) reading of the literature? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Lesser Cartographies: It sounds like you've drawn the correct conclusion. I haven't reviewed the literature as extensively as that, nor am I a medical expert to make the distinction, but I do know that WP:MEDRS generally prefers recent articles to older ones. Where recent articles contradict older ones (with a predominance of recent articles disagreeing with the older ones), we can presume that the knowledge basis has progressed and that the older article is no longer valid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research or alternatively misunderstood research, with unsupported conclusions. --Bejnar (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis and merge any verifiable material. The fact that the medical profession no longer believes this is a single virus is not cause for eliminating it entirely from Wikipedia. What should happen is that the acute hemorrhagic conjunctivitis article should explain the historical medical thinking and how and when that changed. It is a valid redirect, the term was once used and it is perfectly possible that a reader could come across it and look it up. SpinningSpark 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This virus doesn't exist so the article or a redirect have no value. If someone wants to incorporate outdated info about this into the correct article go ahead but this is a delete not a redirect. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedily deleted under G12 Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbul Hayat Kakakhail[edit]

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

Does not apear to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. No references either Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage (in the current state of the article - none). Not BLP, died 1995 (unsourced). --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged article for speedy deletion under CSD G-12 as a copyright violation of this article at wordpress. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 13 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) 21:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Florida Paper[edit]

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

Disputed PROD for a company that fails WP:CORP with coverage that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has won awards from the local chamber of commerce. Other award wins lack coverage by independent reliable sources. A search for sources only gets routine hits. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, delete. -- John Reaves 18:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The listed awards are non-notable and multiple searches are turning up nothing to indicate this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources and searches are not showing this to be a notable company.Stesmo (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Ordinary local company that, basically, exists. I wish them well. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Burton[edit]

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

Delete (or redirect/merge to Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics). Doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE independent of the Institute. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nominated the article had no independent sources but I just added four. There's a case to be made for WP:PROF#C6, but I think that (when viewed as a whole together with his work at Perimeter) the book reviews I added for his book are enough for WP:AUTHOR. I also added a source for his post-perimeter work. There are three separate things here (heading Perimeter, writing a book, and founding a web site) so I don't think there's a BIO1E problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Excellent work as ever, David Eppstein. Boleyn (talk) 04:34, 6 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 06:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Golub[edit]

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

Lots of references on companies he has been associated with, some to articles he has written, but nothing in detail from WP:RS on HIM. fails WP:BIO John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - there is at least some coverage of him in Bloomberg and other reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see anything at Bloomberg other than a CV. Still not seeing it. John from Idegon (talk) 18:27, 14 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) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are bits and pieces involving him, there's no substantial coverage of him specifically. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 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, czar ♔ 01:56, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change my mind to weak delete based on the above discussion. I would not oppose the article's deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real coverage of him. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 03:50, 13 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. Its clearly snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films[edit]

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

This list appears to be a non-notable intersection between 'actors who have appeared in pornographic films' and 'actors who have appeared in mainstream films' - though 'mainstream' is undefined. The list entirely fails to explain why an actor appearing in these two different genres is of any significance. We don't have a 'list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns', so why do we need this list? Where is the evidence from published reliable sources that this particular grouping is in any way noteworthy? It is possible that individual instances of notable pornographic actors appearing in notable non-pornographic films may have recieved coverage (though the list provides precisely zero evidence of this), but that doesn't justify what appears to be little more than fancruft. Even ignoring the many redlinked films named, it could hardly be claimed that the majority of the movies named are major cinematic works, and the parts played by pornographic actors are often minor - how exactly is the fact that Amber Lynn played an unnamed 'party goer' (one of five likewise unnamed) in 52 Pick-Up even remotely of encyclopaedic interest? Why should we care that Sophia Rossi was cast as an unnamed 'porn star' in Bachelor Party Vegas (a film with an article, but no actual evidence of notability itself...)? Possibly the fact that Taylor Wane appeared in the Adam Sandler comedy Little Nicky might possibly be of interest - except that the source cited for this in Wane's article doesn't actually state that she appeared in the film, and neither for that matter does our article on it. The list is an unsourced collection of trivia, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction to the above - On checking again, I see that the source cited in the Taylor Wane article (IMDb) actually does mention mention a 'Taylor Wayne' (note spelling) as appearing in Little Nicky - as "Blonde fan at baseball game (uncredited)". Whether we should assume that Wayne is indeed Wane, and that IMBb can be a reliable source for an uncredited appearance is of course open to question, though whether we should give two hoots about it one way or another doesn't seem to me to be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close of disruptive nomination per WP:MULTI and WP:POINT - the policy that would govern this nomination is being under hot debate here. Let's wait until policy is clarified before basing decisions on it, and don't add more noise to the heat - if that's a valid English expression. Diego (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to read the rationale for deletion I gave? Your assertion that this nomination is 'disruptive' is not only entirely unjustified, but frankly disruptive in itself. It should be noted that I raised the notability of the list on the relevant talk page two days ago, with no meaningful response beyond a 'go ahead' from a contributor supporting the list, and vague assertions that WP:PORNBIO justifies it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I presume that, after all these days, you still didn't hear the argument that the sources for the entries in the list are located at the linked articles? You must be in a real hurry if you can't wait until policy settles before wanting to get rid of the evidence. Diego (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has ZERO to do with that issue or argument. Why for the umtenth time is this intersection notable?!? --Malerooster (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being an intersection not noted in reliable sources,and, at best, weakly sourced to the IMDB which does not meet WP:RS Collect (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is a ton of other porn related material and lists that can be worked on and improved. I am sorry that people might see this is anti porn, but that misses the point entirely, and it has zero to do with not liking porn or being anti porn, so hopefully that isn't even brought up as a red herring or strawman or whatever you might call it. --Malerooster (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the lack of references and the determination among many editors that references should not be added, this should be deleted as a BLP matter because it is unreferenced, and an unreferenced inclusion on this list is potentially controversial and potentially damaging, personally and professionally. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not have a rerun of arguments about referencing - that is an issue that can be fixed by editing. The lack of notability of the topic (the reason I nominated the list) is a separate issue, properly dealt with through AfD discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quoting myself from the article's talk page days ago: "About notability, this list clearly passes the WP:Notability#Stand-alone_lists test (eg., found in five minutes, CNBC, BBC, Yahoo Movies, Backstage Magazine, CNN, Las Vegas Sun)". Then, an intersection which is well-noted in reliable sources. The examples made by the nominator just reflect his bad faith, why he didn't mentioned Sasha Grey starring in Steven Soderbergh's The Girlfriend Experience[28] or James Deen starring in Paul Schrader's The Canyons[29] or Ron Jeremy in a bunch of titles?? Finally, the comparison between adult actors in non-porn films and a list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns is just laughable. Cavarrone 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that nominating this article for deletion was done in 'bad faith', why do you advise me to make the nomination? [30] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a valid rationale it would had been acceptable, but THIS rationale is pure bad faith, as long as it makes misleading examples and comparisons and ignores the sources I pointed you days ago in the talk page. --Cavarrone 19:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can examples from the list be 'misleading'? Do your sources indicate that Taylor Wane's role as "Blonde fan at baseball game (uncredited)" is significant, or don't they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cavarrone for the links, I appreciate learning more on this. I wouldn't agree with the laughable part though. --Malerooster (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster, I consider the comparison laughable, or if you prefer, ridicolous, because pornography is not a "genre" like comedy, western, horror or drama, it is actually a parallel, well-separated industry from mainstream film industry. Both industries share the same genres but they remain distinct. Professional actors, even the more characterized into a specific genre like John Wayne or Eddie Murphy, all of them regularly span different genres (Murphy starred in action, musicals and sci-fi films, Wayne acted in comedies, war films and crime films) but it is pretty rare they appear in adult films. Pornography has also its genres (there are gonzo, porn comedies, porn horrors, porn romance movies) and porn actors span the different genres as well, within their industry. Cavarrone 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavarrone, fair enough, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is pretty obvious. Porn stars going mainstream is not a random intersection of two categories, it is a notable subject on its own. There is considerable coverage of the intersection between porn and mainstream entertainment by reliable sources ranging from mass media journalism[31] to trade publications,[32] the tabloids,[33] and probably some scholarly or academic sources you look far enough. A list format is useful as a navigational tool, and in fact many of the sources such as the CNN article use list format for illustrative purposes. I can certainly understand that some people think that pop culture, and porn in particular, are worthless subjects. However, there is a lot of interest in the subject as demonstrated by the sources. Notability is notability, and it is not our job to pass judgment. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a nomination made out of spite, for the sole purpose of disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you need to stick to the drama boards and making jokes. Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean this is being done out of spite. Please leave this to the grown ups if you can't assume good faith, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fine one to be lecturing others about "good faith", given your own recent ANI shenanigan. As regards this, the argument itself I understand totally - and it is a joke. Grumpy and SquawkBox and Kww can't get their way on the issue of redundant citations in lists, so now they're trying this cynical tactic. It is a bad-faith nomination. If you don't think this nomination is being done out of spite, you haven't been paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

like I said, stick to the kiddies table. --Malerooster (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pot. Kettle. Black. FWIW ATG and BB both have prodigious block logs and AN/I history. Aggressively blanking content, edit warring, threatening and insulting those who oppose, and then nominating for deletion is a well known pattern, and can reasonably be considered disruptive, particularly if judged by the community to be unfounded in the first place. I don't think we have to go there yet. The community consensus process will take its course, we'll see if the participants comply with the outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once went without a block for 4 years, and then was blocked unjustifiably. So I no longer much care. It's the occasional price of honesty. But don't lump me in with the deletionists who triggered this latest fiasco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AVN Award, the leading awards for the pornography industry, has an award category for "Crossover Star of the Year Award", which shows that crossover stars are a notable and discrete category. The porn-mainstream crossover phenomenon is not discussed on Wikipedia, of which this list is part of the story. Perhaps the article could be renamed to something "crossover", or reframed to be about porn-mainstream crossover, but the content is related and so should be preserved and worked out on the talk page how to frame it. -- GreenC 18:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) mostly per Wikidemon. Everytime a nomination contains the rhetorical question "Why should we care of X?", we know we are dealing with a bad AfD nomination. We're not in the business of snobbishly deciding what our readers should care about, and even less of the business of thinking why they should care. All that we should care is that it is sourceable, notable knowledge, which means that somehow someone cared for it, no matter how baffling it is for us. Wikidemon has shown proof of such requirements being met. A quick perusal on Google Books even shows that the transition/intersection between porn acting and mainstream acting is discussed in academic sources, and as such it is not a trivial intersection. The accompanied blanking of the list is also troubling. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cavarrone found reliable sources. And whenever someone is in a film that gets reviewed, they'd mention they formerly did pornography, if that's what they were known for. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wanted to chime in with my offer to source 10 of the currently blanked entries, per Talk:List_of_pornographic_actors_who_appeared_in_mainstream_films#Sourcing. As best I can tell, this AfD is really being driven by Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Unreferenced_lists_and_porn_stars_RFC. More drama instead of article improvement, as usual!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cavarrone has found sources that indicate coverage of pornographic actors in non-pornagraphic roles. That such sources exist isn't disputed (I indicated as much in my deletion rationale). What I do however dispute is that such coverage in any way validates this indiscriminate list, which seems to cover every anonymous bit-part role played by a pornographic actor in any non-porn film whatsoever. If the appearance of particular pornographic actors in 'mainstream' roles is significant, this should be demonstrable by sources covering the particular actor and role in depth. Notability is not inherited, and actors doing non-notable things in barely-notable films (if that - note the redlinks) don't belong in any list meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cavarrone has provided RS establishing GNG and the template at the article clearly states it is undergoing a major edit, so with a little rehabilitation, it should be kept. As to cyclopia's point about the Afd, I agree as well. Anytime the nominator is not able to provide reasoning based on policies and guidelines, but rather questions and comments like Why should we care and whether we should give two hoots about it one way or another and We don't have, it just smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above, especially Wikidemon and GreenC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all the bias against porn actors and actresses, some have proven to be crossover artists who can play very serious roles in films, television, theatre and sometimes are good musicians, singers, painters, writers, directors and yes in a strange kind of way role models. Some also enjoy a cult following and their appearances in mainstream is very significant despite the obstacles. So the raison d'etre for such an article is very clear, highlight sucesses in other fields where they are not just some "piece of meat" and talentless though admittedly well endowed hopeless pieces of garbage to dispose of. About the nomination for AfD, I see this is an improvement at least opening the door for pro and con arguments for one. That was what was evidently wrong in colleague SqueakBox's initial approach. It was this intransigent attitude of deleting it all despite it all that exploded all this discussion. The problem would have been solved if he had eliminated doubtful dubious entries and kept the rest. I am not against. In fact we should be diligent by not dubbing actors arbitrarily as porn actors when they are not. If there is even a 10% doubt about somebody being in porn take him out. But there were many listed whose pornographic credentials were beyond a shred of doubt and their participation in crossover roles in non-pornographc films quite accurate. But au contraire SqueakBox deleted them all in one stroke and at the beginning just a couple of editors including me in what became a long piece protested (I never write long pieces by the way, but here I had to.) And the page sadly remained without content. Now things are better. We have a list back, so we can discuss objectionable items that we select, so for now it is a better situation. Also we have an AfD which is quite balanced overall. So my basic two concerns are answered. We do have a content, and we do have a due process.. let it culminate in a concensus. Having said that, I am all for keeping the list with the necessary clean-up effected in ridding it of the contentious ones ... werldwayd (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It's a useful article according to its views/day (about 800/day over the last two months) and the more than 300 editors who took the time to work on it over the years.[34] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:07, 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 23:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISaute[edit]

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

Prod disputed by original author with no reason given. Subject fails the General Notability Guidelines. Media coverage in sources that have been provided is confined to local Montreal. There are dozens of places like this - why should this organization deserve an article? PK T(alk) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 16:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely un-notable Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the author's contributions have somehow been linked to the company, leading me to believe that there is a WP:COI. - Sweet Nightmares 03:45, 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. SpinningSpark 11:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concast group[edit]

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

NB: Page moved to Concast Group

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. AlanS (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Not a good habit to !vote when you yourself the nominator. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I unthinkingly moved the page to fix the capitalisation problem. Rather than move it back, I'm mentioning that here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many "references" are to the subject's website and may be an attempt to increase traffic. One series of articles duplicate coverage of the same prospective event. Not enough to provide "reliable" and "significant coverage" per WP:GNG.--Rpclod (talk) 18:31, 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 redirect to Nana Ekvtimishvili. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Mainland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirect to its notable filmmaker Nana Ekvtimishvili. If author wishes it userfied while he comes up with non-English sources, I'd say yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:33, 21 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 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 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nana Ekvtimishvili. Fails to meet WP:NFILM and notability is not inherited.--Rpclod (talk) 18:36, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). If desired, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Handevidt[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary and unreliable sources, of a musician whose claim of passing WP:NMUSIC is debatable at best — while this article claims he was an early member of Megadeth for a few months long before they were famous, our article about the band itself completely fails to mention his name even one single solitary time (unless you count his presence in the navbox template at the bottom, which doesn't really count as a substantive "mention"). And furthermore, even if he was in the band at one point, NMUSIC is quite explicit that a musician is not automatically entitled to a standalone article just because he was in a notable band — if you cannot adequately reference a standalone article to reliable sources, then he only gets to be a redirect to the band and not a standalone BLP. I'd accept redirection to Megadeth if somebody can actually provide a real reliable source demonstrating that he was ever actually in Megadeth — but absent that, this has to be deleted if it can't be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Megadeth. If the band's official history credits him as a founding member, that should be good enough. --Michig (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that as sufficient sourcing for a redirect, yes — although if the band's official history credits him as a founding member, then why has he been completely obliterated from our article about them? Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. A lot of Wikipedia articles are far from perfect. --Michig (talk) 20:15, 21 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 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Megadeth band members where he is mentioned. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 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 redirect to T.T. Quick. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Seconds (TT Quick album)[edit]

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

Article about an apparently Non-notable music recording. The only sources I could find were a few trivial mentions and discography track listings. Fails WP:NALBUM. I tried redirecting the title to the artist article but was reverted by a determined editor. - Mr X 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this one-sentence album stub to T.T. Quick, the artist's article, although notability of that subject is rather dubious. This stub offers zero content not already at artist page. Found nothing to suggest that this album qualifies under WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as possible search term. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 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 15:33, 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 23:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision: Rio Investments[edit]

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

Blatant promo, user Sistema Firjan promoting the works of Sistema Firjan The Banner talk 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear The Banner talk: this article is not promotional, but a presentation of the document "Decision: Rio Investments", with 15 references (2 of them linking to the studies themselves and the other 13 to reliable news vehicles). Its structure is consistent with this same purpose, consisting of introduction (annual survey about investment trends), the parts that comphreend the study (summary, study and map, with a practical example on investment intentions to facilitate the understanding) and, finally, two case studies (to ilustrate what it is as a whole). Although you are interested in "local history, mainly from county Clare (Ireland) and Groningen (The Netherlands), Irish traditional music and genealogy", as stated in your User Page, remember that this article aims at entrepreneurs that are interested in investing in Rio de Janeiro state. If you were one of them, you would certainly want to read an article like that. And even more: to have access to those documents. Perhaps you have seen a word or sentence that gave you the impression of a promotional writing. If it was the case, please, let me know where it is and I shall improve it. Best, --Sistema Firjan (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for stating this clear that the purpose of this article is advertising en promotion: (...) remember that this article aims at entrepreneurs that are interested in investing in Rio de Janeiro state.. The Banner talk 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, every article in WP or in any enciclopedia is there to be searched and read by people with specific interests. I though this was already clear. This one we are debating about has a clear economic appeal. That is why it is classified under categories such as "Economy in Brazil", "Finance" and "Investment". The same way, your article Bon Appétit (restaurant) is aiming at people that want to eat in a restaurant. Would that allow me to classify your article as "advertising en promotion", even if you write it is "a fine dining restaurant that received one Michelin star from 2008 up until now" and cite only one independent source among two? Really, it is hard to understand what you think if you just keep labeling the texts I write instead of contributing to their improvement. --Sistema Firjan (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, you have no clue what an encyclopaedia is. The Banner talk 18:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, do you have any positive contribution? This discussion is not productive. Enciclopedia = "A comprehensive reference work (often spanning several printed volumes) with in-depth articles (usually arranged in alphabetical order, or sometimes arranged by category) on a range of subjects, sometimes general, sometimes limited to a particular field." (Wikitionary).--Sistema Firjan (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have nothing positive for you. Just WP:NOTADVERTISING. The Banner talk 19:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't speak the language, but many of the sources presented have long strings in common, making me think that this is a regurgitation of a press release (possibly in combination with a newswire report). Most of the coverage appears to be on the numbers in the report not the report itseld (methodology, reliability, etc). In short; there are no obviously reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 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 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:SECONDARY as the secondary sources cited don't establish the publication's notability but instead simply discuss the Rio economy. However, Sistema FIRJAN has a significant number of secondary sources and might warrant an article, which could cover the "Decision: Rio Investments" publication. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What suggests that the survey itself is notable? --Rpclod (talk) 18:50, 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. If desired, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Britain[edit]

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

Advertising/promo The Banner talk 11:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and redirect. From the current Wikipedia article itself: "After 3 successful years, StartUp Britain was acquired in March 2014 by the Centre for Entrepreneurs - the entrepreneurs’ think-tank – founded by serial entrepreneur Luke Johnson (businessman). The Centre for Entrepreneurs (CFE) is a natural home for the StartUp Britain campaign, as it adds the evidence and thought-leadership necessary to inform and influence policy. This enables StartUp Britain to have greater influence in discussions around small business policy and allows StartUp Britain to share the opinions and ideas of small business owners with government. StartUp Britain continues to be run as an autonomous initiative and remains separate from the central CFE activity, but will partake in joint reports, activities and research to help shape and inform policy with the CFE." So, it would seem appropriate to merge and redirect from Startup Britain to a section in Centre for Entrepreneurs. If the latter is currently a redlink, then start that article by this material from Startup Britain. Note there is virtue in retaining this article's history, there is no need to delete the contributions from Wikipedia's history. --do ncr am 16:10, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it meets notability by borderline. The page can be rewritten to eradicate promotional piece.Anishwiki12 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radically prune and merge to Luke Johnson (businessman) the current owner. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 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 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains only one authoritative article which is insufficient to prove notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:54, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Formula One season[edit]

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

To soon. The recreators claim it to be substantially different from the previous version, yet it actually contains less content than the previous version. The new content (Haas and European Grand Prix) is giving undue weight as argument for recreation as in the context of the whole article they're no that incredibly important changes at all. As a proposal to end the debate of when to create such an article for once and for all, I suggest create a project guideline to take the start of a season to create the next season's article. Tvx1 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the discussion at Talk:2016 Formula One season and agreed by User:Bretonbanquet, and User:Prisonermonkeys. Typically these articles get created 18 months or so in advance (give or take a bit)...
- 2015 - 30 April 2013
- 2014 - 18 March 2012‎
- 2013 - 26 October 2011‎
- 2012 - 19 February 2010‎

So this time of year is the normal time that contracts get signed and published, and so we get specific data that refers just to this year. Thus that becomes the natural time to create the page, as more data is released, so the page will grow. I don't think we can have a definite date difference, because if there are major rule changes then they will be announced very much earlier than mid year. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As RonHJones says, this is about the normal time to create a new season article, and there's enough in it to start off. If we have a set date to start a new season article, then we have to have an AfD every time some unknowing editor starts one "too early". Every season is different and some will have info early and some won't. The undue weight argument for the Haas info is nonsensical. If it's valid info for the article then it counts. We don't have to wait for information that is somehow deemed "important enough". Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Haas and Azerbaijan/Europe is enough info under which to make creating the 2016 season article a good idea. —Gyaro –Maguus— 19:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the above. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:05, 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. Lack of sources bar one about the subject themselves. Seddon ^talk 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Mott[edit]

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

A number of the cited sources appear not to mention him, or be about unrelated subjects (eg. [35] [36] [37][38] and [39]. Other sources are self-published or interviews, so I can find little evidence of WP:NBIO --Mdann52talk to me! 13:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 13:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfD for Hope Rehab Center Thailand (deleted). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Mostly cited by primary/unrelated sources. Independent is substantive, but only source under WP:GNG. Jppcap (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage of him. Fails WP:NOTEBLP. --Bejnar (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berhampur (Lok Sabha constituency)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, as per the previous AfD. While that AfD resulted in a redirect based on the claim that non-notable election candidates should redirect to the constituency that they contested, I've no idea where that policy comes from. If they're not notable, why bother? Sitush (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Sorry, the redirect to this article fooled me. I need to renom the redirect itself. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom 4[edit]

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

per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon. Currently the article exists just as a haven for speculation. Happy to reinstate when filming has actually started. Cowlibob (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF. Chander For You 15:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanderforyou: If you knew that the article doesn't meet WP:NFF then why had you created it by adding those sources that were just speculating that Salman and Deepika Padukone will be acting in the film. These sources were using question marks in their titles. Are you here to create hoax? Please reply.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:09, 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. Spam. No significant independent reliable sources. Seddon ^talk 08:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lozano[edit]

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

This is an autobiography. Notability is not established. Sourced cited in the article are: subject's personal web site, subject's self-promotion, twitter, instagram, etc. Some of the sources do not even mention the subject, and none has significant coverage. Google News search returns no hits [40]. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an appropriate entry for Wikipedia. A simple Google search of the name and projects listed within the page will showcase enough notoriety throughout the web to garner a Wikipedia page.

Page cites numerous sources interviews conducted by others in regards to the person(s) work. Most entertainers these days release work via social media (solid explanation for a few sources being taken from Twitter and Instagram). Even includes a source as a legitimate website from the Prime Minister of Mongolia's son speaking of the work that this person has done. Government officials aren't legit sources nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdjbooth (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Zdj, that government one. Battushig? It gave me a 404 error when trying to check it. it can't count if it doesn't work. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did it!)} 13:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Twitter, Instagram, two pages showcasing his music (falling under some kind of site that lets anybody post anything), the 'everydejavu' interview page doesn't even load, the 'girlgeniuss' interview seems solid (i'm not sure if interviews are discreditable, i'm welcome to being proven they are/aren't) and self published website. On this basis i conclude that only one source could possibly hold a credit, and we all know that one isn't enough. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did it!)} 13:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant self-promotion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, as above, notwithstanding SPA Zdjbooth's opinion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied by request of sole creator of real content.. Peridon (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Williams (U.S. Navy lawyer)[edit]

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

Non notable IMO. Fails WP:SOLDIER. He chose to resign over a torture issue, noble standpoint but resigning publicly doesn't create lasting notability, it just makes a news cycle Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my standards. JAGs are supposed to represent bad military officials; that's their job. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I started this article six years ago, and haven't edited it since. In six years the wikipedia's criteria for inclusion have evolved and I agree with the nominator that Williams does not measure up to the current criteria. All the edits since my initial edit six years ago were trivial reformatting or changes to the metadata. No one else added any new intellectual content, so I am changing this to a speedy deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 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 deleted by Deb (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superpoly Fabric[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. Information should be included in the main Polyester article page. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 11:37, 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. Deor (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Military Resource Directory[edit]

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

I don't see how this local phone directory is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief, what is it with every minor publication and procedure associated with the U.S. military? Most of them really are not notable in any way, shape or form. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage and hence fails WP:GNG. Anyone want to argue WP:NBOOK? Did the author think that the Wikipedia was a directory of directories? I hope not. It also fails for lack of a claim to notability, failing the indiscriminate info test. --Bejnar (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warehouse shoe sale[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since July 2009, lets make a decision either way Gbawden (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they show 60 locations, that's a big enough retail chain to justify an article in my opinion. The article needs updating, however - they show a location in Nevada now. PK T(alk) 16:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PKT. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned up the article and added some references. The article's title should be changed to Warehouse Shoe Sale (with capital letters). --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walton-on-Thames Cricket Club[edit]

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

Tagged for notability and unreferenced, this orphan doesn't sound like it meets the notability guidelines. Sounds like any other local cricket club, no matter who pops down to play for them Gbawden (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The club doesn't play in the Surrey Championship ECB Premier League, thus fails WP:CRIN. A quick look of the clubs fixture history on CricketArchive confirms this. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we normally allow articles on "village" cricket teams. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a non notable cricket club. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:35, 6 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) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wakelin[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP (Although 2refs are there - One ref is to some fanmail crap, The other IMDb so it's basically unsourced), Fails GNG + NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 13:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Two TV credits, one for a recurring role = textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., no significant coverage. Fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails WP:NACTOR. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Skyscraper[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 unremarkable event. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's some coverage in Polish news sources, but they seem regional or worse (blog) and on the short side. Not seeing enough sources to justify voting keep due to significant mainstream coverage... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 6 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. Karantsingh, to answer your question, murders, even racist murders, are not generally notable even if reported in the press. It would make no real difference if Sandeep Singh had died. What would make a difference is if the attack had some enduring notability and continued to be discussed in reliable sources in years to come or was the trigger for important later events. At the moment it is just routine news, and Wikipedia does not cover this. SpinningSpark 12:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Sandeep Singh[edit]

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

redirect to Sandeep Singh. This article has a massive COI and doesn't appear notable. I suggest a redirect. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirection Required. The redirection is done on wrong link. You can tell what topic should be give for this hate crime incident. This is regarding recent Hate Crime attack in United States and is under construction. Various News channel published this:

bhasker
timesnow
timesofindia

{{Karantsingh (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete - tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. No indication of lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Reginald Denny <- The article is also related to Racist attack and is slowly being build to large base. The case reached at head institution of Sikhs. Many Indian media channel gives it coverage. Can't this article build to large base with developments? or If Sandeep Singh got murdered like Murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, then it turns notable? Any general attribute for notability for articles related to Racist attacks on member of particular community which even reached to higher management of community(sikh coilation and SGPC) and which participating in solving the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karantsingh (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's a sad story, but not important enough for an article. The comparisons to the beating in the LA Riots and the killings that followed 9/11 have no merit. The author has good intent, but appears to want to use this to right great wrongs, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mention US Sources too: huffingtonpost, nydailynews. Sandeep Singh is a common Man. I think you cannot create article on common Man. Just like Sandeep Singh, many racist attacks occur in US. It does not mean Wiki is going to create article on each. First, let story develop upto some level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.235 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu - Like Murder of Balbir Singh which is post 9/11 racist mistaken identity attack, the article also put many references from news sources. So will those links become invalidate or need to corrected? Secondly, I am unable to get from all WP rules which you have shared because the this murder balbir singh article is also referenced from news and seen many articles taken references from news channels. Even famous 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict have news links. actually just want to understand notability? Like say if Sandeep Singh or XYZ got murdered in this mistaken identity racist attack, will this comes in notability? (Karantsingh (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, as per Gbawden --Bejnar (talk) 06:38, 14 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) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'ORA (2014 Film)[edit]

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

Unsourced film which, I think, fail WP:GNG NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 09:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very close to an A7 speedy. IMDB appears to be the only source for this. The "star" of this film (in quotes because it is the only role with a name she has ever had per IMDB) also has had an article recently created sourced only to IMDB. John from Idegon (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find some sources in Romanian language: [41], [42], [43], [44], but it's not enough, in my opinion. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability, Despite Rsocol's sources they're not really "source material" imho. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 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 06:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Rebel[edit]

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

Does not look to meet WP:NCORP. Searching through the ghits, I see one article on the paperlessness of their office, one on them opening a California office, and a couple in specialty magazines on them putting up a pair of kiosks in a mall. The awards listed (mainly just nominations) are local, except for an "app of the day" listing, which would be one of hundreds per year from one of the many sites that do "app of the day"s. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 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 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 09:28, 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Last (band)[edit]

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

Fails all 12 criteria of WP:BAND. It could be argued that #9 might apply but America's Got Talent is hardly a "major music competition," rather it's a reality show. Beyond that, they didn't "win or place" and subsequently went nowhere fast. Previous AFD was on the fence. The Dissident Aggressor 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I created this article? In 2006, in the height of the U.S. music/reality TV competition craze, I would have believed that this band had earned its notability through its exposure and ride the wave of success it had then. In 2014, sadly, it doesn't meet the tests. And I will say this: I don't want to look at how I justified keeping this article. I haven't even been a regular viewer of AGT or similar shows for years now, nor have I kept up with the band. But, yes, I agree the subject currently won't meet WP:BAND and a cursory Web search on the subject yields a lack of results. It also doesn't help that the band's websites (under both names) are inactive. The exception is when the band is mentioned in association with Ming-Na Wen, as she and her husband were the band's managers, and may still be so; it would be worthwhile to include a mention in her résumé, in other words, her article. [45] [46] [47] [48] The band does have a YouTube page but it hasn't uploaded new content since 2010. Their "Ain't No Sunshine" music video, for which was their most noted performance on AGT, has almost 1.7 million views, but as impressive as that is, it's not enough for a WIkipeida article nowadays. in conclusion, due to a lack of sources and wavering WP notability, I'd have to say delete for the band until they gain mass attention or recognition again. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If this article is kept, the article should be renamed to Tatum Jones, as that is apparently the current name of the band. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 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, Davewild (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no doubt about consensus above. This has been open for 16 days and nobody has said keep. Please close. The Dissident Aggressor 22:18, 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. AfD has been running for a month, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CampingRoadTrip.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company and website. Only claim to fame is short coverage in the NYT and (as I understand from the previous AfD discussion, link is dead) passing mention in a magazine published by the WSJ. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 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 00:45, 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, Davewild (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 09:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - The only mention was in the NYT which was 2 years ago, As of now I can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:30, 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 05:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.T.C.H. issues[edit]

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

Article consists almost entirely of plot summaries. Publication history and reception could be added, but then again that could just as well be added to the main article W.I.T.C.H.. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 09:24, 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 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Nest trilogy[edit]

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

Non-notable book set; no claim to notability and no supporting references seem to be available. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 09:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not a Star Wars universe fan, but this article is about one trilogy before and after other trilogies, and there are articles about each of this trilogy's components: The Joiner King, The Unseen Queen, The Swarm War. It doesn't make obvious sense to me to delete just one in a big sequence and system. If this was part of some bigger proposal, from some editorial perspective, perhaps an argument could be made, towards reducing Wikipedia's over-coverage of Pokemon characters and the like. But offhand I would anticipate a proposal to merge the separate 3 books into one trilogy article would get more traction, than one to eliminate one of several trilogy articles while leaving articles about its 3 component books, instead. Actually i think Wikipedia is good about covering Pokemon and Star Wars and all that, so let it be, methinks. (Perhaps Wikipedia should be good about covering more serious matters, but reducing its coverage of fantasy stuff doesn't further that, IMHO.) --do ncr am 01:25, 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 redirect to Fairfield, Liverpool. Merging at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Sebastian's Catholic Primary School, Liverpool[edit]

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES primary schools aren't notable NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Fairfield, Liverpool. OUTCOMES is not policy; the school may stil be notable per GNG or NCORP, but I have not found indepth coverage in independent reliable sources to show that it is. BethNaught (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfield, Liverpool per nom and per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Primary schools generally aren't notable and Nothing to merge neither. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairfield, Liverpool per established consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a summary, rather than plain redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 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 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gray's Power Company[edit]

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

Don't believe this company is notable. The product isn't notable and the article is an orphan so nothing links to them. The inclusion of reviews makes it look like a promo piece Gbawden (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 09:22, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Gauthier[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL; the accused was not a national figure, it is too soon to see if there is lasting interest in this. Also seems to be WP:BLP1E, and that one event is not something that he is yet convicted of. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really would like to see an article on this guy. I think it could be interesting, however, the news articles listed on the article are practically all I found on the crime. I think we should wait until there is conviction or at least more written about the crime. Bali88 (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not so sure this guy fails WP:CRIME because the rule reads The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual which is the case here: using a religious show to defraud investors via a Ponzi scheme is not a run-of-the-mill white collar crime, but definitely unusual, although there was a case of Jim Bakker a while back, somewhat similar, although probably not a Ponzi scheme, but a sex scandal and misappropriation of funds. While the Gauthier arrest happened in Florida, the case got media attention from newspapers in New York City and even in the United Kingdom, giving it international reach. There are sufficient references to meet the GNG in my view: I count five references which talk about the crime in-depth. Last, does it fail the one event criterion? One could see it as one event, although it took place over many years (from 2005; charge in 2010? then arrest in 2014), involved numerous victims, so perhaps a case could be made that it was more than a single event? There are two other dimensions here that, in my view, give weight to this article's notability -- the religious aspect (the show was carried on a Christian network, involving the network and possibly others -- why didn't the network executives know what was going on?) and the media aspect (that it was broadcast regularly, possibly to a fairly wide Florida audience). That this person has not been convicted yet is not, in my view, a valid reason for not having the article; when the Florida authorities arrest someone, and major papers cover it, it is notable, and in Wikipedia, we state quite clearly that Gauthier was charged not convicted. The article should cover both sides of the case, that is, Gauthier claiming that what happened was the real estate market went south. Overall, weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find anything in those sources that might help to flesh out the article? Bali88 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's more in the sources. The article can be expanded but I don't like to invest too much time into fixing up an article that is on the chopping block, so I will wait for the decision before expanding it. What's troubling is that the two radio stations involved, WGUL and WTBN, won't answer questions, although they're probably trying to protect themselves from likely lawsuits. Sure seems like they failed to do any due-diligence background checking on Gauthier before airing his programming -- isn't this something that all broadcasters are required to do beforehand? So, there are legal aspects too, here, so I am leaning to a somewhat stronger keep at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need articles on everyone ever accused of running a Ponzi scheme. This person is a low level criminal, there pop up all the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 23 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) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 09:22, 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, as after more than a month there are no keep !votes worthy of consideration. Anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title may do so, and anyone who wants this userfied for a possible smerge may drop a note on my talk page. Deor (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trey of Triforia[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Power Rangers Zeo through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged to some possible future List of Power Rangers Zeo characters page that's just a pain in the butt to make.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:46, 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 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Power Rangers Zeo#Zeo Rangers. There is already an entry there for "Trey of Triforia" that adequately summarizes the content. Lacks adequate sources so fails WP:GNG, hence no stand alone article. --Bejnar (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete it and redirect it. You pick one of the two. Besides, List of minor Power Rangers characters serves as a possible merge location.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content and redirect the title, there is nothing worth merging, and "Trey of Triforia" already exists at Power Rangers Zeo#Zeo Rangers. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to nominator's inclusion at this list. --173.241.225.165 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this newly discovered source, "www.crackedhistory.com", I wish to reaffirm my reasoning for my recommendation (per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes) to delete this article's content (i.e. history) and redirect the title to Power Rangers Zeo#Zeo Rangers, where the content already exists. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Crossley Colquhoun[edit]

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

We don't have a page for every dead soldier, no reason for this one to have one. Per WP:ANYBIO NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. The creator seems to think that everyone at Bedford school was notable 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a NN soldier, killed in a colonial war. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly and completely non-notable junior NCO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOLDIER has massive problems for sure, as the bar is often set as being far over WP:GNG. There is a backstory here as it relates to the Shangani Patrol, and because of this there might be additional sourcing. Sometimes there is quite extensive research published into First World War casualties, so it isn't entirely beyond a stretch of the imagination that someone has done similar research for this chap and his chums, but with the present sourcing it is difficult to justify keeping this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 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 23:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Street Villains 13[edit]

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

Not a notable or recognized gang, single shooting event in 1987 does not constitute significant coverage. Severely unsourced and unverifiable. Not included in the FBI National Gang Threat Assessment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced/unverified; no way should we have an article like this containing unverified allegations of criminal activity. The article names no names, so it is not speedyable as a BLP violation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The article was created by two SPA users with virtually the same name: Lrenteria and Luisrenteria1; I see that an SPI has been filed. I also see that the article been created, speedied, and recreated several times [49] which suggests that salting this title as well as Street Villains 13 Gang [50] might be in order. --MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local street gang doing what street gangs do. Reliable source coverage is limited to passing mentions. Nothing that rises to the level of WP:N/CA or WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmad Hussain Shah Tirmezi[edit]

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

The phrase "world famous in Halifax" springs to mind. Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 09:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN imam, not more notable than thousands of other imans and clergy of other religions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability whatsoever. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I did find an honorable mention in maybe one or two websites about the Muslim community in Nova Scotia, and a whole lot of mentions on discussion boards and Youtube (which aren't RS). Even the mention in a reputable Pakistani newspaper is only in passing. Plus, this fellow is in Halifax and as the nom pointed out, "Halifax" and "notable" are contradictory terms. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 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. Clear delete on the primary set listed. The Wimbledon articles aren't even tagged, they will need thier own listing. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 F.C. United of Manchester season[edit]

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

No reason why we would have individual articles for the seasons of a semi-professional sports team (competing at the 7th level and lower of the national soccer pyramid). In general, for English football, the first two levels get season articles, and some of level 3 and 4 as well (plus teams that get e.g. an exceptional run at the FA Cup or something similar). No reason to make an exception for this club. Fram (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

2005–06 F.C. United of Manchester season
2006–07 F.C. United of Manchester season
2007–08 F.C. United of Manchester season
2008–09 F.C. United of Manchester season
2009–10 F.C. United of Manchester season
2010–11 F.C. United of Manchester season
2011–12 F.C. United of Manchester season
2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season (already nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season, closed as no consensus)
2013–14 F.C. United of Manchester season

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 09:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 09:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- While the club may have an unusual foundation, it is far too far donw the football pyramid to warrnat WP coverage at this level. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per WP:NSEASONS, the club is nowhere near being in a "top professional league" and there is nothing in the articles to indicate that any season received a significant amount of non-routine coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Additional concerns around WP:NOTSTATS as I can see very very little in the way of sourced prose in any of these articles. WP is not a stats directory. Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This football club is being massively overhyped because of their connection with Manchester United. No need to have individual articles, unless they progress to professional leagues.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – consensus appears to have changed about season articles for clubs under the top 4 levels. @Fram: For consistency I suggest that we add these articles about a club formed under similar circumstances that started from the bottom too, or start a new discussion:
- 2002–03 AFC Wimbledon season (level 9)
- 2003–04 AFC Wimbledon season (level 9)
- 2004–05 AFC Wimbledon season (level 8)
- 2005–06 AFC Wimbledon season (level 7)
- 2006–07 AFC Wimbledon season (level 7)
- 2007–08 AFC Wimbledon season (level 7)
- 2008–09 AFC Wimbledon season (level 6)

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as they clearly fail WP:NSEASONS. I also support the deletion of the Wimbledon seasons mentioned by Deulsion23. Number 5 7 15:20, 13 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. self promotion Seddon ^talk 08:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hannett[edit]

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

This is a blatant, if very well done, piece of self-promotion (WP:AUTOBIO) by User:Alexhannett, whose two creations to date have been a biography of himself and a yellow page-ish note on his company All Florida Paper (prodded a minute ago as clearly failing WP:CORP). It's a shame that a person with a potential to create valuable article, as clearly seen from the near professional quality of this biographical article, is only interested in self-promotion (although Mr. Hannett is a marketing professional, so...). Unfortunately, I do not believe that this can be defended on the grounds that his biography merits inclusion - I believe it fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Mr. Hannett claim to notability rests on winning the "2014 Bronze Stevie® Winner for Marketing Professional of the Year at the Stevie Awards". That regional marketing award has went through three AfDs (keep, nc, nc) and I do not believe that a Bronze Stevie qualifies for WP:BIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Further, Mr. Hannett's claim that his person has been "featured in national publications - The Wall Street Journal - MarketWatch,[4] Yahoo! Finance,[5] Thomson Reuters,[6] The Miami Herald,[7] and The Boston Globe[8]." This is a marketing hot air of the highest caliber. First, those are two almost identical press releases (4=5=6, 7=8), carried in syndicated feeds or other low-profile sections of those sites. 4=5=6 article is signed as reprint from "PRWEB", "A PRWeb press release can help your business or organization get reach and publicity on the web across search engines, blogs, and websites". Reuters has a nice disclaimer "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." The 7=8 articles are labelled as reprints from " PRUnderground", "Press Release Distribution for savvy PR and SEO pros". Outside of this attempt to mislead a quick notability check with PR releases, the article has no independent mainstream sources offering any deep coverage - just some passing mentions in low visibility websites, plus the usual assortment of red flags - youtube, subject's home page, etc. Having wasted 20 minutes investigating this self-promotional advert, I hope we can delete it with little hassle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the bronze Stevie nor the local Rookie of the Year award is in itself of encyclopaedic notability, nor am I finding anything better to indicate the subject is more than a man with a job. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's assessment of the article's sources is correct. Nothing independent or reliable. I found no RS coverage in independent searches. Obvious self-promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only he had interned for the second largest county parks system in the United States! I don't think third largest is good enough. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:18, 13 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation risk analysis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Originally created by an SPA in 2008 and not substantially modified for content since it was created. The search <"litigation risk analysis" -wikipedia> turns up 8,800 hits, quite a few of which are related to Marc B. Victor's company by the same name and others just mentioning the concept. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It produces 451 results, not 8,830. IIRC, the latter number is an estimate. How many of the 46 pages of results did you actually look at? James500 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term does have some independent notability, through not much (Google Scholar analysis), and the article as written does seem like an advert for Marc B. Victor's company.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This is clearly a notable topic. Results in GBooks indicate that it satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. It gets, for example, an entire chapter in this book. As for the perceived advertising, it certainly isn't so bad that the article needs to be deleted and restarted from scratch. James500 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a perfectly valid legal stub. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. --do ncr am 23:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asish Das[edit]

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

no substantial notability. :"youngest student entrepreneur" is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in student/startup media and appearing as one of 15 on a TV show does not amount to attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability . –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete . No notable coverage , no mentions in any reliable sources , no significance , nothing. -- SaHiL (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination and above votes. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now the article's subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:57, 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. There were two main threads to the delete camp's argument. The first of these is that this article is a fork. Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article, but clearly it covers more ground than that now. Others argued that it is a fork of multiple articles. Some in the keep camp argued that this article is an umbrella article bringing together different aspects of events in Ukraine. If it is accepted that an umbrella article would be valid then the fork argument fails whatever the current shortcomings of the article. It may be true that large amounts of duplication exist, but the way to deal with that is by adopting summary style, not by deletion. The question remains is such an umbrella article even valid. Some in the delete camp argued that there are different issues that should not be mixed. Against this the keep camp provided reliable sources bringing together the different aspects as a single conflict. I find that the delete camp have failed to counter this either with arguments from sources or arguments from policy so this position also fails. The second thread of the delete camp was that there is no Russian military intervention, or that there is none other than in Crimea, or that it is not proven that there is military intervention. Against this the keep camp produced sources discussing and comparing Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine and comparing it Crimea, or speculating on it. The keep argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the intervention is true, it is enough that sources are talking about it. Since WP content is based on reliable sources by policy, then I find that the keep camp has the strongest policy based argument here. Having said that, we need to be careful what we are writing as fact, what is a sources opinion, and what is pure speculation. But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion. SpinningSpark 21:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine[edit]

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

So far, the only confirmed intervention in Ukraine by the Russian military has been in Crimea and nowhere else. The intervention in Crimea is already covered in 2014 Crimean crisis and this article is essentially repeating everything that is already covered there. So unless there is further intervention by Russia in the future, this article needs to go. Constance Lahaye (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nom struck as sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constance Lahaye. Ansh666 17:59, 11 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This article is very large. I find it hard to believe that all content is already covered, and oppose simply deleting the article without taking some sort of additional action as well. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Can't we merge this article?, the idea is that content from this page is moved to the other pages covering overlapping topics. I'd take it that people wouldn't be pushing for outright deletion, but towards a consensus that the page is a redundant fork that needs to be merged. If the final outcome of this discussion is a decision to merge, then the merger process can begin immediately after AfD closure. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's pointless to have an article that's a virtual duplicate of another. Now if there is further Russian intervention later on, this article might then be appropriate. But that's a story for another time, and hopefully it won't come to that :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.48.42 (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Crimean crisis. Anything mentioned here can be incorporated into that article. Airplanegirl394 ✈️ 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this account was created on the same day as the deletion discussion was initiated, fancy signature and all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote struck as sock; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constance Lahaye. Ansh666 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was an unneutrally and speculatively titled fork of 2014 Crimean Crisis from the very beginning. Now it's even worse, it's being used for speculation about Russia's involvement in the Eastern Ukraine. The speculations about Russia's troops "here and there" are already covered in the respective articles. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Crimean crisis. Does seem highly speculative beyond 2014 Crimean crisis article. Rwendland (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis. The organization of articles relating to Ukraine is been appalling since the start we have so many subarticles and names for different things it just becomes confusing as to what we are looking for or at. This should be merged into the Crimean Crisis as the only official Russian involvement occurred during this event. Everything else is speculation for the most part. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly rename to Russian military intervention in Crimea. ~~If renamed, we would need an additional page, Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine.~~ (Inserted: we already have a similar page about another geographic region, War in Donbass, however naming this page "War in Crimea" would not be appropriate. As it is right now, this page covers all Russian military activities on the Ukraine, so that War in Donbass is sub-page of this page). There is huge number of sources claiming about current military intervention by Russia in Ukraine. This is allegedly done through (a) direct artillery attacks from Russian territory; (b) sending heavy weapons and their military personnel (disguised as people on temporary leave or retired from military service). That was the reason for international sanctions. Many GRU officers were killed in Ukraine [51]. Come on. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely this is an important topic. anyone who looks at interpretermag.com from time to time knows there is much to write about. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article covers a different aspect of the conflict than Crimean crisis. According to reliable sources, Russian intervention is probably not limited to Crimea. You can label that "speculation" but that's irrelevant - what's relevant is that reliable sources discuss the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- When news sources indulge in speculation themselves, it is rather hard to qualify them as "reliable". So far as they are concerned, the US government has the means to verify such allegations, yet have chosen not to do so. The use of social media as a form of evidence is perhaps the closest they can come, a worrying trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.151.230 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS for the definition of a reliable source. Whether or not, in some anonymous internet user's opinion, sources engage in "speculation" or not is not one of the criteria and hence irrelevant to a deletion discussion. The sources under consideration here are clearly reliable. The nature of your comment suggests that the delete vote is a means of POV-pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there actually have been three merge proposals already, along the lines mentioned above (all characterized by some extensive sock puppetry and other shenaningans). All of them were rejected. This seems to be an attempt to achieve the desired outcome through other means, i.e. WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Oh yeah. I might as well mention that I'll probably be filing an SPI report on the initiator of this proposal and a voter or two above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it is a fork and has no place here, but SPI would certainly not harm. We have too many brand new and throwaway accounts editing articles on the Ukrainian crisis with both sides POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, you mention that we have had merger proposals in the past, but may I remind you that consensus is not absolute, and can change over time. What would have been consensus in the past can change as time progresses and the situation evolves. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 Crimean crisis. Russian military and paramilitary activities in and around the Donbass constitute a completely different operation. From the start, this article came off like a WP:POVFORK, and its open-ended nature has made it attractive for WP:COATRACKing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands right now, this page (in essence "Russian military intervention in Crimea") is considered a part of 2014 Crimean crisis. Merging these two articles will make an effect of considering the entire "Crimean crisis" as "Russian intervention". This is not unreasonable, however I still believe it would be better to keep these two pages separately because the "crisis" may indeed be something bigger than simply intervention. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePointless fork of already existing article and there is no military intervention by Russia in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That explains a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, clearly a fork of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine presents these events as internal Ukrainian political conflict. 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine presents these events (or a part of them) as covert and overt military intervention by Russia. The content and the way of presentation of two pages has very little overlap, and both pages are very big. Speaking practically, I would suggest keeping both pages and gradually improving them. Deletion would lead to loosing a lot of valid content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is still a fork, and the way to improve things is to have a coherent presentation in one article, not to split them over two articles (and possibly someone comes up with the idea of 2014 Civil War in Ukraine, and we will have three).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how is 'pro-Russian unrest' the same as 'Russian intervention'? -just repeating 'its a fork' is no good - the way to improve things is not to slur over things in such a way as to call Russian tanks entering another country , 'pro-Russian unrest' - that is Orwellian newspeak kind of thing - a coherent presentation in one article would need a good overarching allinclusive title - and 'pro-Russian unrest' isn't it Sayerslle (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean we have full-scale war between Russian and Ukrainian armies, this is original research, and you will have difficulties finding sources which are not marginal. Anyway, my point is that one article is pretty much sufficient. I do not care what the name of the article would be, though 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine does not look unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'if you mean --' something I didn't say at all - I said intervention , not 'full scale war' - what a stupid straw man - anyway this story is not going away and keeps developing [52] - Ru wants 'humanitarian intervention' bbc world news Europe - and to delete now would be idiocy imo, pov idiocy - so, I've had my say Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when myloboaccount says dogamatically 'there is no military intervention by Russia in ukraine' - well, in the May Donetsk Airport fighting more than 50% killed were Russian citizens their bodies were shipped back - so some guide to the involvement -Putin has been covertly supporting the separatists in eastern Ukraine - the shoot down of the plane is part of the story too I think etc - listen to this podcast [53] mymoloboaccount, or do you get all your views from RT etc ? crimea was a situation full of lies -and in the end Putin just admitted he was lying didn't he? there is information available about Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine - to ignore it is to willfully encourage ignorance not knowledge imo - is that what wp is about now? ( the proposal to delete this , from an editor with 44 edits? what is that about? maybe too new to the project to understand its about increasing knowledge not reducing it, deleting stuff for no reason)Sayerslle (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main argument by the Russian side about this: many hundreds Russian citizens killed at the Ukraine (and remember that separatist leaders are also Russian citizens) were volunteers. This is not anything new. For example, the entire 300,000 strong Chinese army during the Korean War was considered "volunteer force" by Chinese side. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its still Russian intervention - and then theres the 'ex-military', or military intelligence -'you are never really 'ex' ' - anyway the Russian argument belongs in an article about all this - the point is that there is an attempt here to delete the article - that's out of order imo - on thepodcast here 3:50-ish [54] 'tanks , armoured vehicles, crossed the border from Russia,' day befrore MH 17 was shot down - are the tanks and armoured vehicles, volunteers too? (I get your thought , like maybe George Orwell went to fight in span civil war but that doesn't mean there is an article 'british intervention in sp civil war' - but I guess I don't think Russian intervention is like that, a load of Russian orwells - not at all like that imo)Sayerslle (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly (excluding the part about Orwell). Moreover, main point of many publications is that the entire campaign in Crimea (and in Eastern Ukraine) is directed entirely from the Moscow, and all separatist "leaders" are merely their middleman or puppets. For example, Aksyonov in Crimea was "elected" to his position by Russian GRU detachment that occupied their parliament (just as during the Soviet war in Afganistan and elsewhere).My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and that strelkov bloke. ( just read your 'don't waste time editing wikipedia' - very sound advice contained in that little essay!) Sayerslle (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/merge, pref delete – People discussing this matter are getting bogged down in details about whether there was a "Russian military intervention" or not. This is not what matters here. What matters here is that this article's content is merely stuff that is forked from more appropriate articles. For matters in Crimea, there is 2014 Crimean crisis. For matters in the Donbass, there is War in Donbass. Regardless of whether Russia did or does or doesn't intervene in Ukraine, it can be covered in the appropriate article, depending on geographic location, as it already is. There is no need for this fourth article, which is merely a fork that is attempting to push a point-of-view, and has no unique content. Therefore, I recommend this article be deleted. I do not see any information here that is not already in either 2014 Crimean crisis, Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis, War in Donbass, Timeline of the war in Donbass, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. We have plenty of articles. One for the crisis in Crimea, one for the pro-Russian protests across eastern Ukraine, and one for the war in the Donbass region. That's plenty, and they are in much better shape than this pile of tripe. Please, do us all a favour. Delete this article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if its tripe it should be improved - Russian military intervention in Ukraine , under that title , is worth an article - those that argue against are just as open to a 'knee-jerk' charge as those who want an article under this name. - dos it not bother yu , or give you pause , rglloucester that an editor with just 44 edits , started this deletion call? after 44 edits I was just about getting the hang of how to insert pictures I think. this is a pov drive to edit history - none of the other articles have titles adequate for this content - this is not about 'pro-Russian unrest', do you not see that ? Sayerslle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith, so I don't particularly care about the motives of the person that nominated this article for deletion. All that I care about is getting rid of this content fork, which cannot have any unique content, and does not. This "tripe" cannot be improved, because improving it would be forking already existing content at other articles. If there is a Russian intervention, it is in a particular conflict or situation. We do not need a separate article for the intervention from the situation that was intervened in. POV forks should be eliminated, and so should this pile of tripe. If there is intervention in the War in Donbass, then it is written about at that article. If there was intervention in Crimean Crisis, then it is written about at that article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about War in Donbass - I did not see this page. However, we need Russian military intervention in Crimea, i.e. this page under discussion! "War in Crimea" would be improper, and "Crimean crisis" deals only with general/civilian rather than military aspects. Therefore, I still believe this page must be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original intent was to have a separate articles for the military and political crises in Crimea, but this has not happened. The Crimean crisis essentially covers everything, and anything from here worth keeping can be merged there with little trouble. There is no justification for having a separate on the Russian military intervention. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't agree - there should be an article that looks absolutely specifically at Russian intervention, not pro-Russian unrest, and not limiting itself to a specific geographic area, looking at the arc of Russian intervention - and now taking the form of the establishment of ' a fortified supply corridor', 'under a guise of a humanitarian mission' in eastern Ukraine - Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGlouster. Then let me tell this differently. No, I think this page contains a lot of information, which is currently not in 2014 Crimean crisis (anyone can compare himself!), and therefore this page is not a POV fork. Perhaps one might include a lot of content from here to "2014 Crimean crisis" without making "Crimean crisis" unreadable (in fact it is already huge), but it did not happen. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any information that is here can be merged to the appropriate article. If there is intervention in the War in Donbass, that is covered at that article. We already have a section on Russian involvement in the War in Donbass at that article. Adding any information here on the subject would be forking. Regardless, this is all WP:CRYSTAL, since none of it has actually happened. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean 'none of it has actually happened' ? [55] Russia is firing missiles at ukraine - what bothers me when you say you don't care if chicanery is involved in those who vote fr deletion is that you don't see a problem at winking at people who are just mugging off the project - another vote has appeared here - from someone with 5 edits in five years - its a joke - you smile at the chicanery, you bit by bit drag the project into disrepute, imo. mature people understand that it isn't ends justify means - the means do matter - editing openly and honestlySayerslle (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about "missiles" is covered in War in Donbass already. I was referring to the "humanitarian mission" hypothesis. Regardless, I try to assume good faith. If you'd like to do a SPI, be my guest. If there is a problem, identify it. I have not done anything that is not "honest". I've stated my honest opinion, which I've held since this article was created ages ago. RGloucester — ☎ 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'war in donbass' - 'pro-Russia unrest' - none of these has 'Russian intervention' in the title though - but 'russian intervention in ukraine' is an important topic - a topic on its own - it involves the eastern Ukraine story and the shoot down of the civilian passenger plane , and the delivery and employment of buks , and the crimea event and the role of Russian military intelligence, it involves the putin method of creating problems and then offering himself up as a solution to problems - it is a subject area on its own , that exists, part of this story , in other articles, but deserves its own article imo. I never said you were dishonest - but complacent if others were dishonest - you didn't care because you assumed good faith - but that's a bit complacent really - just my opinion. - all it takes for evil to thrive etc - Sayerslle (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2014 Russian military intervention in Crimea (with or without the year disambiguation) and reduce scope. That's what this article was initially intended as - see Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. If not, a redirect to one of the articles User:RGloucester mentions above would work too (probably the wider "pro-Russian unrest" ones). Ansh666 20:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite this article completely. Far from being a nationalist or even a supporter of russian government - this article seems unnecessary. Without hard evidence of russian military involvement in Ukraine - this article amounts nothing more than to speculation and "yellow pages" style of presenting the information. Its repetitive and redundant considering many other articles on ukrainian crisis already exist on wikipedia.--Electricitydrive (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@electric doyou mind me asking by what obscure alchemy you have been led hither to this rather out the way topic - - to edit wp - for just the fifth time in 4 years or so. Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayerslle As i already explained to someone trying to ban me for voting here - i didn't use this account much but i've edited wikipedia anonymously before and im using similar named accounts on other wiki's, like UESP. I've noticed this article today, while reading some obscure forums. I am a staunch defender of wikipedia but this doesn't mean that i must like or endorse every single article i see. Everyone should just take a chill pill and stop being so paranoid all the time. --Electricitydrive (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common events are by no means a "rather out the way topic". Ansh666 23:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: This article is a blatant example of a WP:Content fork. Information that is here is already present on multiple other pages with significant overlap, and there is no reason for the information to be repeated here, nor for this article to exist. We should not have multiple articles discussing the exact same thing under a different title, and anything that is currently missing on the other existing articles can be moved over. This page's content is redundant to 2014 insurgency in Donbass, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and other related pages scattered throughout Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate webhost of limitless information, and this applies to information duplication as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A military intervention of one state to another is an event of great magnitude by itself. For example, there is a whole bunch of articles about various American military interventions. (One can google it: https://www.google.com/search?q=american+military+intervention+wikipedia). But some say there is no persuading "proof" of such intervention in Eastern Ukraine as yet. But Wikipedia does not assesses "proofs". It is written based on sources and claims in sources. And Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine is considered by world political leaders and major media as a fact, the reason for sanctions against Russian elite. And speaking of strange accounts voting for deletion and etc: of course, there can be pro-Putin editors who will do their best to shift focus, as there is now an Kremlin's entity responsible for international Internet propaganda, as media tells. -- A man without a country (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to keep your arguments based on Wikipedia policy, and not accusing people of working for Putin or coming up with original interpretations of military action? None of all this talk about what a military intervention is even matters. Wikipedia is not concerned with the WP:TRUTH, and none of your points address the issue of Wikipedia's guidelines on content forking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see accusations? Whom particularly have I accused? I'm not accusing, I'm warning. Please, don't accuse me of accusing if I actually have accused no one. :) -- A man without a country (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, spare me the doublethink. If you weren't making implications about the motives of editors, why even bother mentioning Putin? Why not just address Wikipedia policy instead? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you already know that the discussion starter turned to be a sockpuppet. So my suspicions were somewhat reasonable. But who cares? Let's delete the article, as sockpuppet suggested. That's cool. -- A man without a country (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue with the ad hominem arguments that allow you to conveniently ignore valid points made by other people who aren't the sockpuppet nominator? I don't give a flaming shit about the sockpuppet, address my points, and the points of other people. Stop using the nominator as a convenient excuse to play roundabout games. You are essentially repeating your diversional and irrelevant association fallacy nonsense over and over as a cheap way to undermine anyone who doesn't agree with you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your language is terrible - the vehemence of your denunciation in any case imo is a case of 'protesting too much' - if you don't care that dishonest methods seem to be employed wholly by your side of the argument , that indifference to those methods does you no credit , and ultimately undermines the project imo. Sayerslle (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good argument. (If it were, people would start writing socks to nominate articles for deletion so that the articles would not be re-nominated again). A standard Wikipedia practice is that even if the dscussion has been started improperly, IF it is a real discussion and it could have been started properly, it is just let to continue. In this case, there are users in good standing on both sides of the discussion, and thus it is irrelevant that the discussion was started by a sock. The votes of the socks have been striken out (I am not sure why were the socks not blocked for simultaneous voting), this is pretty much sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its not an 'argument' at all , its a comment - the debate should continue, yes, fine - I personally find it instructive all the dishonesty is on one side , sorry but I do, - that's a comment, not an argument - and the 'flaming' language doesn't help anyone, I hope we agreeSayerslle (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that on multipe occasions I was accused being a anti-Putin POV pusher (which I obviously reject, as well as I reject being a pro-Putin POV pusher, or, for that matter, any POV-pusher)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a separate article for Iraq War and American military intervention in Iraq. Why's that? I don't know what you are talking about with "assessing proofs", or "pro-Putin editors". All I care about is content forking. This is a fork. Russian "involvement" in the War in Donbass is covered at War in Donbass, and Russian involvement in Crimea is covered at 2014 Crimean crisis. We've also got Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Overall, this article is nothing but redundant, and criticisms about "truth" and "pro-Putin" editors totally miss the mark. I too have been accused of being both a "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukraine junta" POV pusher, and frankly, I'm tired of it. RGloucester — ☎ 06:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what I'm talking about with "assessing proofs", you can scroll this page up to the very beginning and see the starting post, which I reply to. It begins with "So far, the only confirmed intervention in Ukraine by the Russian military has been in Crimea and nowhere else", which in nothing else but assessing of proofs by discussion starter. You can also notice, that I'm not accusing anyone, but warning. I came to this article, because it was in top of Google results. I wonder: if it had been deleted, what would I see instead? -- A man without a country (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is from bridget Kendal, in June I think "Having concealed the use of Russian troops in Crimea, when he protests now that none of his troops are involved in Eastern Ukraine, he sounds disingenuous.

He is instead suspected of conducting another "maskirovka" - destabilizing part of Ukraine by stealth, through irregulars and volunteers who are nonetheless with their heavy weapons allowed free access across the Russian border, at the same time as he loudly appeals to Kiev to halt its advance."putins games bbc- so its not a case of comparing to Iraq war - oppnents of the article title keep setting up straw men imo - this is about intervention in Ukraine across the board, through a variety of means - intervention, not invasion - and it is not covered in its broad sweep from Crimea to Buks, to maskirovka in the east, whatever, by any other titles. Sayerslle (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. According to publications, the military interventions by Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea (these could be described in two separate sub-articles) are parts of the same military campaign by Putin against the Ukraine. Hence one could argue that we also need an "umbrella" article about the entire military campaign. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Iraq war. That is a really good example. You've made a mistake: we actually have a separate article 2003 invasion of Iraq. -- A man without a country (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester. There was no actual (active) war in Crimea. But there was Russian military intervention in Crimea (occupation of Crimea, something like Occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union), which led to annexation of Crimea - per sources. That's why. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Russian intervention" was part of the crisis. It was not separate from the crisis. Do you understand what forking is? "Assessing proofs" misses the mark. It has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. I don't care what the nominator said. The problem here is that this article forks content from other articles, which is unacceptable. I see lots of speculation here and crystal-balling. None of that matters. What matters is the forking, and this article is a fork. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you say you agf but you accuse editors of 'knee-jerk' reponses - is that agf? 'I'd support such an AfD, but I fear that there would be too many knee-jerk "keeps" from people not familiar with our articles on the matter. All we need is someone with the guts to implement it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)I agree. The only confirmed military intervention by Russia thus far is in Crimea, which already has it's own article. This article needs to go, unless there is further armed intervention by Russia in the future. Constance Lahaye (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2014 - so you and constance have an outlook resolved to call all RS talk of russian intervention in easternukraine 'crystal balls' and speculation' - that's how I see it anyhow - its got nothing to do with crystal balls its about reports of what is going on now, and after the Donetsk airport fighting especially. 'The rebels in eastern Ukraine have been led mostly by Russian citizens and field heavy weaponry Kiev and its allies say can only have come from Russia. Moscow denies aiding them.' - well they would , wouldn't they?reuters nbc report of Russian intervention east - if no other article brings together the arc of Russian interventions in Ukraine, I don't see why yu oppose it so vehemently really -it is one phenomenon and needs one correcty titled article Sayerslle (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please address the issue of content forking instead of explaining for the tenth time what is your view of the Russian intervention (which is not a RS and can not be included to Wikipedia btw). The argument that none of the four existing articles had intervention in the title is not valid since it does not conform to the policies. We do not have a policy that every time a new term appears a new article can be created. We have other instruments including moving artices, creating redirects, and expanding content, for this purpose.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'content forking' - is irrelevant to me - the intervention is a single phenomenon and needs its own article. if that doesn't address the issue for you I cant help - i'm not a wikilawyer but I think its a load of old bluster , forking nonsense- its an article offaithto some editors that Russia has not intervened except in crimeaSayerslle (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who proclaims to be not a wikilawyer you left too many messages at this page which have too little relation to policies. Anyway, it is clear now that your arguments have nothing to do with the policies, they are just a mixture of comments on other editors and you own convictions, and thus can be discarded.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

whatever - Russia prepares for war - a Russian intervention article , with that title is needed. policies aren't more important than realities you know. 'your views can be discarded' - spoken like a real apparatchik!Sayerslle (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "spoken like a real appartchik [sic]" - please have a good read at WP:NPA. This is your final warning - keep personal feelings out of this, and opinionated beliefs to a minimum. Address policy, and do not make jabs against people participating in this discussion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and telling editors their views are discardable is not form of personal attack. of course it is. I've had my say here anyhow - corrected my spelling , silly me , thought it was spelt appartchik , wasn't a typo or anything . sicSayerslle (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter wrote his personal opinion, and he is entitled to his own opinion. He made a comment explaining that he did not believe your points were satisfactory and hence thought that they can be discarded, and this is his own personal opinion regarding your arguments. Ymblanter did not use a label to attack you as a person. On the other hand, you did attack Ymblanter, through calling him a stooge of the communist party. There is a significant difference here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester. You tell: The "Russian intervention" was part of the crisis. Yes, absolutely. Therefore, this "Russian intervention" page (AfD) is a valid sub-article of parent article(s) about "crisis". We do sub-pages all the time (otherwise many WP pages would be enormously large, just as all these recent Ukrainian politics pages under discussion). That does not mean content forking. And remember, it's OK to have some redundant content if it helps readability. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a subarticle of article about "crisis". It is "crisis" article which is actually to be a subarticle of "intervention", as "crisis" was one of the episodes of the intervention. -- A man without a country (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion of this page was discussed before and decided to keep. This is also a matter of concern. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell is this "a matter of concern"? I would have found out about this AfD anyway, it's not like it made any difference. Furthermore, he pinged the two of us because we were already involved within that talk page discussion, it's only natural that he did that. You're grasping at straws here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep russia invaded crimea, and announced today a "humanitarian mission" would be sent to Ukraine. That doesn't mean it's an invasion, but it could be--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You completely missed the point of the discussion. Nobody is disputing that war did not take place within Ukraine. The point being argued is that we already have articles that cover the information that this article covers. Address the points that people bring up, please, AfDs are not a number-vs-number vote. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Person who started this AfD was identified as a sockpuppet here. This entire discussion is a violation of rules. Please close. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That has no bearing on the discussion as a whole after so many people have commented. I will strike the nom and sock !vote, though that doesn't mean withdrawal. Ansh666 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Address the arguments within the discussion, not the person who started the AfD. There is no reason to close this discussion, there are legitimate concerns regarding this article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all arguments already (see above). If you want to encourage a sockpuppeteer by continuing the discussion he started, this is up to you, but I am out of here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that a sockpuppet started it; if other good-faith arguments for deletion exist it cannot be closed under either established procedure (WP:SK) or WP:IAR (as short-circuiting a discussion between legitimate editors is not in the best interests of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Ansh666 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of bad faith here among those who want to "keep" this "article". Multiple editors, myself included, have been talking about a merger/deletion for ages now. Arbutus' remarks once again miss the mark, as they say "Russia invade Crimea". We know that. That's why we have 2014 Crimean crisis and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. This article is a fork, as all of its content is elsewhere. No one is contesting the facts on the ground about Crimea. I wish that whoever closes this discussion would actually take time to read the arguments presented by the "keep" parties here. They hold no water whatsoever, and completely ignore the reasons why this article must be either merged or deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 19:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably the most reasonable comment i've seen so far. Thank you. Im not against merging either, though i would prefer if this was deleted or rewritten as a more concise, factual article. --Electricitydrive (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is far more about eastern Ukraine than crimea now anyhow rgloucester, why are you obsessed with saying the crimea content is elsewhere - this article is about the great sweep of all Russian intervention in ukraine , not limited to geographisc area, or particular crisis, but all the crises that have been marked by Russian intervention, or that have the hand of the Russian regime visible as discussed and reported in RS. it is an article on its own, not a fork because crimea discusses crimea only, but makes no connection with the shoot down of MH 17, etc - Rs commentary make the connection - the connection is the putinist policy of destabilization and mischief generally - that unites crimea, buks, shootdowns, Donetsk fighting, military intelligence, strelkov, etc Sayerslle (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the main contributors to War in Donbass, I'm well aware that that article has all the information regarding Donetsk, Girkin, Malaysia Airlines 17, &c. It covers all of this on its own, in more detail, and did so first. That is why this is a fork. RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @RGloucester. Neither 2014 Crimean crisis nor Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation describe the issue of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (this page) in sufficient detail. This is not a content fork, but rather an independent sub-page. That's why I believe it must be kept as a separate page. If anyone wants to properly merge content (as discussed here), that's fine. But this was not done. I also said that you should not explicitly invite/name specific editors, like you did here, who are ready to support your vote (as you already know from this discussion) because that falls under WP:Canvass. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the bad faith accusations. We were discussing it for a while. However, I didn't realise that the page was nominated for deletion at the time, and hence didn't comment at this discussion until yesterday. Noting that neither of the other editors discussed the matter with noticed this deletion nomination either, I pinged them to comment. Anyone would've seen that message, as it was on the article talk page. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about my actions whatsoever. Nothing. As far as a merger goes, that is what we are discussing now. If you will support a merger, that's fine with me. RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely believe that this is issue over which reasonable people can disagree. Some of the bad faith has been generated by the nature of this nomination (by a sock puppet) and by the intensity of previous discussions. Of course that is no excuse for assuming bad faith towards other editors.

I've generally opposed (somewhat without effect) the sprawl and content-forking of articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis. And there's been a lot of that. There's probably half a dozen other articles which are certainly worthy of deletion/merger. I'm not so sure this is one of them. I know I'm crystal-balling here but given how events are *currently* unfolding, particularly with the possibility of this supposed "humanitarian" intervention, I would very much like to have this discussion in a week or ten days or so. Hence for now I'm voting keep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a reasonable position to take. I personally think that it makes more sense to merge what little is here in this mess of an article, per WP:KIBOSH. If something happens regarding "humanitarian convoys", or whatever, that requires a new article, then so be it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about your own Iraq War invasion example, with separate articles Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq? You had made a false argument but ignored my pinpointing it. But it obviously works against your case of "forking". This article is clearly more general, and have to be keeped, as intervention continued from alleged Russian involvement in Maidan protesters killings pass Crimean Crisis to War in Donbass, and still is continuing may be to something else, and this very article is obviously an umbrella article for all these events where intervention took place. -- A man without a country (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an obvious difference is, if you have read the articles you cite, that 2003 invasion of Iraq is a legitimate sub-article of the Iraq War, and is notable because one has reliable sources describing the whole thing. It is not a fork. Similarly, nobody suggests to merge Battle of Stalingrad into WWII. The article we are discussing here is a WP:COATRACK.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Crimean Crisis, annexation of Crimea and War in Donbass just separate independent events, or they are episodes of some bigger event, like WWII? Aren't they linked together? Like 2003 Iraq invasion is linked with subsequent Iraqi rebellion in the general Iraq War? Actually they are linked in half-a-year-lasting Russian invasion, there are lots of reliable sources for it, and there is an international consensus about the matter. So again what you are trying to push is your own assession of proofs, not the problem of "forking". -- A man without a country (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect or merge with Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis. This started off as a fork of the main article. If it can be rewritten then it's fine by me, but the way it stands is highly disruptive to the encyclopedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

volunteer marek make a good point - this is hardly the moment to erase this title, (as some seem so desperate to do, a bit de trop arguments too -'highly disruptive to the encyclopedia' ! - what nonsense imo - gross hyperbole) -as the 'humanitarian convoy' of white painted trucks leaves[56] - ymblanter there are notable sources that discuss this Russian intervention, in its various and chameleon forms ,military provocations as [57] much as direct as in crimea kind of thing, as a single ongoing phenomenon so to speak, and not one article covers it as this article could imo as user:a man without a country also says.Sayerslle (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may think what you want, but it still doesn't erase the fact that the article is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. I'm perfectly fine with the title, but like I said, if it can be rewritten then I will have no problem with it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well I agree - because it can be rewritten, its a wp article, not an untouchable Tolstoy ! or anything. Sayerslle (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2014 Crimean crisis/2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine as a less neutral fork of an existing article. SuvarS (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

33 edits in several years - you overwhelm the encyclopedia with your invaluable contributions. yesterday - 'The border service said Russian forces continue to shell Ukrainian territory, hitting two border posts overnight with artillery and mortar fire' - this is not about 'pro-Russian unrest' or 'Crimean crisis' - ffs.Sayerslle (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you one of the authors of the article? Your friendly and welcoming attitude is very much appreciated, LOL.

Believe it or not, I've actually seen quite a lot of news of that type in the last few months:

Ukrainian APC with troops breaches Russian border
Russian checkpoint on Ukraine border comes under fire
Russia vows “tough response” to Ukraine’s military border shelling

See? I could've started writing an article about 2014 Ukrainian military intervention in Russia long time ago, but I don't think writing an entire article based on reports of border guards or state propaganda of either nations is a good idea. SuvarS (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its about more than Crimea suvars - anyway - sorry not to welcme yu -, such a rare bird as you at these wp pages deserves a great really warm welcome and it was remiss of me - even if it is just to seek to delete , rather than add to the sum of content, welcome, welcome, - you can start an article full of russia Today material - it'll probably be warmly received the way things are going round here. - i'm off to watch The Barbarian Invasions -ttfn Sayerslle (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SuvarS. Indeed, there are no doubts (per multiple RS, not only Russia Today) that Russian territory was shelled multiple times from the Ukrainian territory. The only controversy is who did it (rebels or Ukrainian army). This is an additional reason for this page be kept. In addition, there are numerous RS claiming shelling of Ukrainian army by Russian army, exactly as you said. Also a reason for keeping this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People are still arguing about whether there is or isn't intervention. One again, I will state that none of that matters in the context of this deletion discussion. This discussion is about our article guidelines, our organisation of content, and readability. It is not about whether there was or wasn't intervention. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you think 'our' organisation of content would collapse if there existed an article with this title? seems absurd. 'readability' ? so this title would inevitably lead to unreadability ? - why ? -because your articles have said it all, and the reader would get confused? but which of your articles covers all the military intervention of the Russian regime from Crimea to now and the 'humanitarian convoy'? which article?( and before you say about the convoy, there are fears that this is a ploy kind of thing, its al part of the story of Russian military intervention in RS, realities and suspicions etc ) if you say , its there , but in dispersed articles , (with vanilla titles some of them), how is that more 'readable'? if you say they are all separate, and MUST be dealt with separately or the sky falls in, as you have said above , that is your pov. that is a pov ,but you don't see that, do you. there are RS that discuss this Russian arc of intervention as one phenomenon. Sayerslle (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What shall I do, my Lord, Father above? I pray that the Holy Spirit grants me the foresight to see into what it is that you are saying. What I care about is policy, and guidelines. WP:Content forking is a guideline. I fear that you've fallen into the path of the quixotic warrior that aims to right all wrongs in this world. I do not understand what is behind your crusade, but whatever it is, please refrain from continuing it. You see, personally, I'm quite on the Ukrainian side of things in this war. However, that's not the point of our working here, where we are trying to build an encyclopaedia. Our job is to be neutral, to present information in a factual manner so that the reader can make up his or her mind for his or herself. POV forking in an attempt to direct the reader into speculation about "humanitarian convoys", and whatever, is not at all appropriate. It is both crystal-balling and inherently not neutral. This is not the place for advocacy. I accept that there are real reasons why someone might want to retain this article, and I respect Mr Marek's position in this regard. However, yours is not acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh well then fine, because I respect volunteer mareks position also - I don't understand anything you say either btw , and all the 'what shall I do my lord' - bit exaggerated, like a lot of your talk , -the only wrong I want to right is the wrongheadedness that says the sky will fall in if the title above stands. it wont.Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your standoffish attitude and bad faith assumptions are really not helping your case here. Ansh666 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansh , we are a big community,full of all sorts of types, I'm sure I read very different to how I am in reality,- very unsure basically,- writing here demands a bit of 'front' , for me it does anyhow,- standoffish-ness, to you is actually me , glad that Gloucester appreciates what volunteer marek is saying because I've found volunteer marek whenever I've encountered the name, full of good content, and happy to leave it at that - I don't mean to be arguing different from volunteer marek, but obviously I end up doing so - in the end , anyhow its not 'my' case. reality is the master is one of my favourite sayings - reality makes the case for this being a proper title for a proper article imo.[ btw I saw what you deleted - native speaker? really ? - etc - none of you bloody lot are self critical in the least - you don't see how bloody obnoxious you are - really awful - pompous , snide - ugh - hypocrites -] Sayerslle (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest here: I originally thought you were Eastern European or Indian or something. Proper use of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar, while not required, does go a long way towards helping others comprehend what you've written. To the first part of what you wrote, I'm not exactly clear on it, but just be careful to avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (e.g. if you don't care that dishonest methods seem to be employed wholly by your side of the argument, emphasis mine) and follow WP:No personal attacks, which has been pointed out to you before. Also, as RGloucester (IIRC) has said, it's not about the "reality" here (which smacks of WP:TRUTH, to be honest) - nobody is questioning what is going on on the ground, but whether or not it is notable enough, whether it is a legitimate WP:FORK or not, etc. Sorry if I offend, but, as you say, that's reality. Ansh666 19:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going to be honest here: I originally thought you were Eastern European or Indian or something." - uhh... how about leaving your own prejudices and misperceptions out of this discussion, ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

prejudices and misperceptions? I don't care where you're from, as long as your argument is valid and demeanor adequate (which is not true in this case); you could be from Mars for all I care. No, I don't let perception of someone's origin cloud my judgment. A Belorussian farmer or Bangladeshi teenager could have a more cogent point than a tenured Harvard professor. Ansh666 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666. Telling people about policies is OK, but personal attacks are not. Telling others about alleged "dishonesty" and their ethnicity/country of origin in negative context (as you did) is an example of policy (WP:NPA) violation on your part. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about dishonesty is quoted directly from Sayerslle, and as I explained above I don't care about ethnicity/country of origin (minus perhaps Harvard professors, which I may have a low opinion of, in a joking manner). What does it say about people that they take a neutrally-worded statement as an insult or an attack - so used to doing it themselves that they expect others to be doing it too? Seems like there's a lot of bad faith and out-of-context quoting being thrown around here from you all. Anyways, I'm unwatching this. None of the discussion in the past day has really been productive anyways. Ping if I'm absolutely needed. Ansh666 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansh666. Yepp, prejudices. You've connected being "Eastern European or Indian or something" (Besides, is "something" a decent word, speaking about national origin?!) with a lack of "proper use of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and grammar". If it isn't prejudices, what is it? - A man without a country (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky I actually forgot to unwatch this...by the way, that's not how you ping someone. Use Template:Ping or actually link to the userpage if you want them to see it.

Anyways...it's merely an observation; this is a EE topic and I'm used to dealing with horrible Indian English on Wikipedia. Something refers to the uncertainty and general lack of giving a sh*t that I have towards ethnicity. Okay, I know, it was a bit direct and callous, which I need to work on too, but it's definitely being blown out of proportion, people. Kthxbi. Ansh666 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Sayerslle, but considering the numerous times you got blocked for personal attacks: did it not occur to you before that your attitude is the one requiring a certain shift before you decide to comment on others' behavior? Please try to cooperate with fellow editors by assuming good faith without attacking them, mocking, etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename this article needs a merge, or just rename it to Russian Military Intervention in Crimea. We already have topics that have this, so i guess this article violates WP:FORK and crystallballing.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You !voted above to keep; which one do you want? I'd recommend striking the one you don't. Ansh666 17:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for fixing; in the future, you can put <s> after the bullet/indent and </s> at the end, giving ~~this effect~~. Ansh666 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've fixed that up, per WP:REDACT. If comments have been replied to, they should be striked, not removed. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (move) to Russian military intervention in Crimea. Remove all the post Crimean "eastern Ukraine" material. The two topics should not be conflated. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Is there any reason why you would be opposed to merging what residual content there is that pertains to Crimea to the 2014 Crimean crisis article? There is very little information here that is not there, and what is here can easily be merged, which ultimately makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, if that will end this Afd in a more expeditious fashion. I just thought that the 2014 Crimean crisis article might be a bit long, but in general I am against unnecessary content forking. --Bejnar (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian intervention is not limited to crimea - you write, 'The two topics should not be conflated.' - why not? Sayerslle (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically, politically and temporally separate. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

politically separate? - putin then , putin now. temporally - a few months. geographically - undeniable. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that @Sayerslle: read up on Crimean politics. --Bejnar (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The US issued a stark warning on Tuesday that Moscow could be orchestrating another Crimea-style intervention in eastern Ukraine, after pro-Russian forces cemented their control of a government building in the city of Donetsk and there were claims that in Lugansk protesters had taken up to 60 people hostage. The US secretary of state, John Kerry, described recent developments in eastern Ukraine as "more than deeply disturbing" [58] - RS say some observers see it all as same Putin-ist intervention. if your understanding is far more subtle than RS , I thought that wp still followed what RS say. and if you suggest to me I read up on crimean politics , might I suggest in turn to you you read Michael Weiss, and interpreter.mag [59] Russian meddling in the affairs of its neighbours, as documented by Michael Weiss, is hardly over. As predicted, it seems that the Russian bear is not satiated by simply swallowing Crimea. Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, read up on Crimean politics, not US-Russian relations. Crimean politics are and have been quite different from the rest of Ukraine. Read the history. So I stand by my recommendation that the two topics should not be conflated as they are distinct politically, geographically and temporally. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a Russian analyst said this in july[60] 'Putin and his regime have suggested that what is happening in the Donbass is virtually “a struggle for the salvation of the Russians from extermination.” If he backs away from that too quickly, many Russians will view that as “a betrayal” and stop supporting him.' - and talked about Novorossiya ideas - you saying Crimea is absolutely unique is your pov , but RS should count more and from what i've seen they routinely discuss crimea , and eastern Ukraine, and Putinism, together, not hermetically sealed off . read the history you say to me, and I politely say to you, read RS written today not just history booksSayerslle (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Badurushkina (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide reasoning? This is not a vote, so your "delete" means nothing without substance. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelbert the Tiger[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scheduled show on major international network (BBC). [61] [62] [63] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:36, 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) 03:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This was tagged 7 years ago. It may have been planned at that point. Surely it has been aired by now, if it ever is going to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact it was released on DVD, because my sister put me through it the night I tagged this article (this AfD was a sort of revenge). She had seen it on TV before, so it's whether or not it was BBC or CBBC, where most of its kind are aired. If this gets kept, there is a blurb on the back which I will add to the article.--Laun chba ller 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, no evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the BBC for two seasons. [64] I don't see any reviews or ratings information though. Dream Focus 04:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of adequate sourcing it appears non-notable. --Bejnar (talk) 16:41, 13 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 06:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toradex[edit]

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

Advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't expect I'd !vote to keep. The sources cited are simply worthless. They're all just plants of company press releases and similar junk. But Google books turned up this 3-page section and Google scholar turned up many references like this one. At AfD, we consider notability, not content. Notability is determined based on whether reliable independent secondary sources exist, not whether they've been properly cited. It looks to me like they exist. Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In those sources I'm seeing mentions of their products but no coverage about the company. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Msnicki, I appreciate your efforts in doing a thorough search. This topic is relatively close to my area of expertise, though, and I'm seeing these citations in a slightly different light. The Toradex boards are certainly used widely in the academic community, but I'm not seeing any citations that discuss the boards themselves, or, more to the point here, discuss the company. Likewise, the slashgear and cnxsoft articles are reviewing particular products but don't discuss the company. Nor am I seeing enough coverage on individual products to warrant a move and/or redirect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:12, 12 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) 14:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability requires not just some coverage, but "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." And as LC indicates the coverage must provide substantive coverage of the company itself. The 2011 IWANN and IFAC World Congress papers just reference some Toradex hardware and do not discuss the company at all.--Rpclod (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Have made the changes as per the above discussion and used reliable resources based on the links from Books and Scholars search results.--Ram tx (talk 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bombarded it with more mentions and made it into more of an advert. Still no depth of coverage about the company. Still not notable and nearly a speedy delete for blatant advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ram tx:, these kinds of citations are at best unhelpful. Here's my review of the references currently in the article.

Kim (2009), Subject mentioned in two sentences.
Arena (2007), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
Dowland (2010), Subject mentioned in a single sentence.
Neshev (2011), A single sentence mentioning that they didn't use the Toradex product
Moreira (2009), Four sentences and a picture of one of their boards.
Saffer (2009), Single mention in a list, plus index entry.
Dominguez-Morales (2011) Two paraenthetical mentions and a picture caption.

I'll stop here. Put simply, accreting passing mentions does not establish notability, and adding these kind of passing mentions to an article is a good sign the the subject of the article is not yet notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:02, 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) 23:27, 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, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Products may be notable but I'm unable to establish notability of the company. ~KvnG 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company has not received significant coverage, hence fails WP:ORG, and per editor duffbeerforme. --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 13 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 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lerner[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Of the three listed sources, the first mentions him tangentially and the other two are not reliable sources. Pink Bull 18:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may not be a bad idea to include information about subject in yet to be created article about company where subject is CEO, assuming of course company meets notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).--Pink Bull 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources & new page - Thank you for your feedback. I will remove the second source that provides information about William Lerner's charity, Billy4Kids. From your experience do you consider the third source not usable? Please let me know. Also, are you suggesting a page for iPark, the company that the subject is CEO of, be created. There are tangible sources to do so. Thank so very much. Biancamariecar (talk)

Does the New York Resident Magazine have a "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? I suggested creating an article about the corporation because I assume it can easier meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) than this subject can meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) because the former has been in business for more than 50 years. --Pink Bull 15:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will confirm "New York Resident Magazine." I will also create a corporate business page with all available a creditable sources. Thank you very much. Biancamariecar (talk)

New Article Created As Per Suggestion[edit]

Hello. As you suggested, I was able to create a Wikipedia article for iPark. Because this is created will the article titled, "William Lerner" be deleted? What will happen next? Please let me know. And thank you again for your help. Biancamariecar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors will eventually join this discussion to determine whether the article under discussion should be kept, merged, or deleted.--Pink Bull 16:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Biancamariecar is referring to iPark, which was recently created.--Pink Bull 16:59, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 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 06:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sources are citations from Snopes, Forbes, and other sites that use it as a source. Using as a source ≠ notability. Other sources were dug up in the last AFD, which closed as "no consensus", but the sources did not seem to be reliable extensive coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 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 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with this statement: "Only sources are citations from Snopes, Forbes, and other sites that use it as a source." First off, I think that would be enough in itself to establish notability. Those are multiple independent sources, independent of the subject and of each other, which themselves are notable (with pretty huge readership), who are citing the Free Wood Post in a non-trivial way. But the cited articles that I read (Forbes, BTR, and four of the Snopes articles) go way beyond that. They are about the social impact of the respective Free Wood Post articles, or about the website itself and its social impact. They are the subjects of the sources' articles, not simply cited as sources themselves. That is akin to dismissing a critical review of a music album because the album was just cited as a source in the review. Multiple, independent reviews in RS by professional writers = notability according to the SNG for music. I believe this is notability established along those same lines. And contrary to what Argyle said in the previous AFD discussion, Forbes did not "disavow" the opinion piece. It states in a standard disclaimer, "Opinions expressed by Forbes contributors are their own." That is different from disavowing the piece. I had never heard of Free Wood Post before seeing this AFD proposal, and I'm not biased as to its notability. I just strongly disagree with the rationale for deleting it, and I see strong evidence for notability in the sources. (I would prefer to see a RS for the number of views though.)Dcs002 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After looking at the original AFD discussion that was nominated 3 1/2 weeks ago and then closed with no consensus, it bothers me that it was re-nominated like this TBH. Where does that end? What has changed since that discussion was closed? Maybe it was improperly closed by an interested party, and maybe it was renominated by a party who was dissatisfied with the outcome of the previous discussion? I don't know either party, and I don't mean to impugn anyone's reputations or assume motives, but think about what that looks like, and the tone it sets at the outset of this discussion. Today is the first time I have participated in any AFD discussion. Is this normal? Do people just re-nominate articles if they didn't get a consensus for deletion the first time around? Dcs002 (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a discussion closes as "no consensus" by an admin (who are usually the only people that close discussions), then renominating instantly afterward is no problem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sure hope I didn't come off as too personal in my comments. I am brand new to these discussions, and I was giving a gut reaction to what I saw. Dcs002 (talk) 05:15, 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, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 02:34, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Gibson[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ARTIST, etc Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the concern, after looking over the article once more and revisions from other wiki contributors, I found no promotional material and all statements to be properly cited. It appears Logical Cowboy has suggested a conflict of interest to which i see none. As the creator of the page if there is any promotional material in the article please alert myself or a contributor for revisions.Thank you--Stone2ypr (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What were you paid to create this article? For COI issues, see [65] re undisclosed paid editing. Logical Cowboy (talk)

Keep. The article contains multiple references from news media: Newspressed, Bronx News, PSC News, Hollywood Herald, News World Today, plus the Progress for America award announcement. While these are not the most stellar sources, all but the first are all about Gibson, and the first features him in the headline as well as the text. This makes him pass GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply With respect, you are wrong about GNG. These are not reliable, independent sources providing in-depth coverage. These are brief articles, including press release and interview material, appearing in local or bloggy outlets. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

replyI wasn't paid anything, in fact this was my first article every written with much help from supportive wiki contributors i look forward to creating many more.--Stone2ypr (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sorry for the caputilization--Stone2ypr (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC) — Stone2ypr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and more detailed WP:ARTIST etc. as described by nom. Creator of page may be a SPA. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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 22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether references are authoritative, does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO to me. He "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks for your comments, but I wish you would have listed some examples of these good sources. I don't see them. Half the sources are totally non-reliable like IMDB or Amazon. The other half are brief articles, including press release and interview material, appearing in local or bloggy outlets. One of these is about "yacht vandalism"--does not apply to WP:MUSICBIO. Could you please say which sources qualify under WP:MUSICBIO? Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:41, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:27, 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, ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:34, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Noveltoon Animation[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find proof that this studio existed, and the list of works seems to be copy and pasted from Nippon Animation's page. Alex (Talk) 02:18, 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, meets WP:NFOOTY--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Bonazzoli[edit]

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

Individual is only 8 years of age and there seems to be no significiance or meet WP:NFOOTY. Jab843 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked on the other language Wikipedias and he seems to have entries on several of them. I don't know if he passes FOOTY on here since I'm not really all that familiar with it, but hopefully someone familiar with the guidelines can find something useful on those entries. On a side note, Bonazzoli appears to be 17 years old instead of 8 years old, from what I'm finding. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has an appearance in Serie A for Inter, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There is coverage in reliable sources of his Serie A debut for Inter, but if his career ended today, this article would be trivial at best. Jogurney (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 Caps in Serie A (which is professional and fully professional) read the list about f.professional league →→→→https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues←←←←←←--Lglukgl (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes NSPORT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:19, 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. SpinningSpark 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord KraVen[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable celeb lacking non-trivial support. References are all minor in nature, lacks secondary references. Fails notability and associated guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP" @RedDogsix ….Lord KraVen aka "Tionne" is a notable public figure. As a singer and songwriter, music has appeared on major television networks such Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance". He also made guest-star appearances on Emmy Award-winning television series, "The Young & The Restless", "Days Of Our Lives" and More. Please view his imdb page under Tionne Williams. In addition, as a recording artist, he has made special guest appearances [as a commentator] on KTLA 5 Morning Show {Los Angeles] for HIS Grammy Award Predictions for 2013 & 2014. He has also appeared on HLN's ShowBiz Tonight [National Syndicated Show] [All videos can be found online and on YouTube for review]. As an entertainer, KraVen has been featured in TOP/Reputable print publications "Cosmopolitan Magazine" and "Star Magazine" for his style and music in the "Celebrity Column" alongside "Rihanna", "Miley Cyrus", and "Hugh Jackman" just to name a few. [The Article/Vol. info has been noted on the page to support the mention]. In closing, Lord KraVen, has more than 10 Million Music Streams Worldwide and Two Top 5 Hits to his credit. He is has been invited on numerous occasions as a "celebrity" guest to THE MOST prestigious events such, The "Grammy Awards", "American Music Awards", "BET Awards", "People's Choice Awards", "NAACP Image Awards". Anyone who know the politics of the music and film industry know, that invitations to such events are hand picked {Red Carpet photos to mentioned events can be found online and at celebrity stock photo sites "Getty Images", "WireImage", "FilmMagic", "Associated Press", "Zimbio", "PrPhotos", "CelebrityPhotos" and More]. So, please explain to me how Lord KraVen is a "non-notable celeb"? The credits, top Networks and Publications mentioned above are "Mainstream" outlets that are reserved for "celebrities/stars" and should be respected as such. BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did some searching and other than a few mentions here and there (mostly in relation to his tiff with Jennifer Hudson), there isn't any true coverage for KraVen. He has received some coverage for his fashion, but it's WP:TRIVIAL in scope and doesn't show the depth of coverage that we need. As far as his filmography as a whole goes, none of the roles are large enough to count per WP:NACTOR. They're all fairly trivial and aren't considered to be the type of thing that would merit a keep on that basis alone. Being an extra or being asked to come into a local TV channel to talk about the Grammys isn't enough by itself to give notability- the unsaid thing about having notable roles is that it's assumed that the individual will receive coverage in reliable sources. The same thing can be said about his music- I can't find any coverage about his singles. Being popular or selling well doesn't count towards notability in and of itself (WP:POPULAR), we would still require coverage in reliable sources. Overall, all I can find is that while he has been invited to places (and being on the invite list does not count towards notability because of the sheer amount of people who do get invited to such events) and is known, he hasn't received any actual in-depth coverage that would prove that he passes our notability guidelines. The only coverage he has received has been in relation to a blowup he had with a notable person and that's not what we'd consider indepth coverage. Plus, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by him having known Hudson. Sorry, but he fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd also recommend the deletion of the userspace article at User:MICHAELMOO22/sandbox. Part of the issue I have is that it's not only written in a promotional manner, but it's written in a tabloid type setup that is a little too overly sensational for my tastes. It could be seen as an attack against one or both persons involved, although the promotional tone of the overall article makes it come across as more salacious as far as Hudson is concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend salting the article since this seems to have been repeatedly re-created (see Tionne Williams). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd also recommend the deletion of the userspace article at User:MICHAELMOO22/sandbox. Part of the issue I have is that it's not only written in a promotional manner, but it's written in a tabloid type setup that is a little too overly sensational for my tastes. It could be seen as an attack against one or both persons involved, although the promotional tone of the overall article makes it come across as more salacious as far as Hudson is concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ --BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) ….This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...From speculation of the alleged non-eligibility of Lord KraVen's page, According to WP:NMUSIC WP:MUSBIO WP:BLP1E and a few other codes, a wikipedia page on Lord KraVen does meet the criteria. I have done some research under the name Lord KraVen and Tionne just now myself and found his body of work to be modest and respectful. Such work in my opinion, warrants a wiki page due to his "Expert" commentating and appearance as an "Artist" on major broadcast networks. As for the "celebrity" feud between Lord and Jennifer Hudson, that sort of stuff happens EVERYDAY. It appears that the claims against this page are stemming from a more personal perception of Lord KraVen from wiki users RedDogSix, MICHAELMOO22/sandbox etc. I don't find shooting down someone's solid body of work respectful nor professional. I don't see this page being used to sensational the events of Jennifer Hudson & Lord KraVen. It was a major headline during its time that is still document all over the web, and I don't think Jennifer nor Lord can totally erase the events of that moment in time. Its done, but it happened to be huge scandal in pop culture. Just my opinion. I do remember seeing the headline of Jennifer Hudson Vs Lord KraVen on the page of Yahoo! and trending all over the web. In addition, I have done research on his fan base, he appears to have an upwards of 50,000+(which is pretty impressive and substantial for a new artist) which is also a criteria under the WP:NMUSIC for musicians. Maybe the wiki page can use some adjusting, but don't think it should be sent for speedy deletion. Again my opinion. BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your keep rationale and the way you phrase things looks suspiciously similar to how the IP addressed phrased their keep argument. Please understand that deletion is not decided on a vote but on the strength of the argument, and that you should only make one bolded "keep" argument. If you are the same person, please make sure to post that you are the same editor, otherwise it can be seen as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and can lead to you getting blocked from editing if a WP:SPI shows that someone is trying to edit with multiple accounts to give off the impression of a lot of people voting. I'm not saying that you are, just trying to let you know that there are ways of checking. Also, the size of a fanbase does not automatically mean that the person is notable. We still need coverage in reliable sources in order to show notability for KraVen or his fanbase, which is lacking. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Now when it comes to the whole celebrity feud, that didn't seem to be notable enough to warrant a keep on that basis alone or even really a mention on Hudson's page. Most feuds aren't, to be honest and it's rare that we'd have enough to merit a mention in an article or on its own page. Like you said, such things happen everyday and most of the time are hyped up because they happened on slow news days, are "tabloid fodder", or because one or both of the people involved want the coverage. It all boils down to coverage, which KraVen lacks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now as far as claims of personal bias go, please be careful about making those claims because more often than not, saying that someone is doing this because of a personal bias actually works against you more than for you. You have to prove that they are doing this for personal reasons, otherwise it's just an unwarranted accusation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + Tokyogirl79 - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP.~~ I am not going to use this forum to go tick for tack. Again, I don't think you are fully reading ALL of the different acceptable criteria's. According to WP:NMUSIC. Lord KraVen's info that he or whoever has submitted has been verified by supported links on the page. I really don't see what your issue is in accepting the verifiable links. is he a HUGE celebrity No, {not that i can see} but is he a Celebrity?, Apparently. The verifiable sources linked on the page has made that clear. and YES one of the acceptable criteria's for a musician is "a large fan base or cult following" however it does not state a number. In addition, as a musician, music featured on a National and International Television broadcast such as Fox "So You Think You Can Dance" (that has a huge cult following and millions of viewership) is reputable. The actual Show segment/clip I found on YouTube, shows proof by the subtitle the show added during the airing of the Live telecast. "Lord KraVen - Mirror Mirror". A Platform that massive can and has generated huge notoriety for established and emerging artists.BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Is Lord Kraven Lady Gaga? No. But I fail to see how the sources listed are not "notable" enough to classify him as a celebrity, when celebrity pages such as Brooke Candy can stay up.

using sources such as "Tumblr" for "notable" sources. Can someone please explain to me how subsequent appearances on KTLA 5, a news network, is more notable than Tumblr? And not only that, but being hand picked to attend events such as the Grammy's, iHeartRadioAwards2014, etc? The sources listed at the bottom of the page are more than enough proof that Lord KraVen has enough media leverage to be deemed a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MICHAELMOO22 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — MICHAELMOO22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All Keep votes above are all by one person so I've striked 3/4. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Davey2010 Again, I ask that you please refrain from augmenting and the removing of my comments. Your response to my comments have no merit and are false accusations. Please conduct yourself in professional manner. This is a professional forum. My comments that I have posted are signed by me and displays my username BrandonWalker2014 (UTC). Your behavior in striking my right to comment is unethical, disrespectful and unprofessional. You have made it clear that you disapprove of the Lord KraVen page (for whatever biased reason) now please move on and let the powers that be decide the fate of the page.BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BrandonWalker, please understand: You can comment here as often as you like, but you may only use the boldface word "keep" once. Later comments from you can be prefaced with Comment or something like that, or simply indented under whoever you are replying to. I am striking out your duplicate "keep" vote above; Davey2010 was correct to strike your earlier duplicate votes. Also, I am going to delete the warning you put on Davey's talk page; he has done nothing disruptive, he is merely enforcing Wikipedia policy for this type of discussion. You are the one who is being disruptive with your challenges and insults to other users. Please focus on the question of whether the subject here meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are somewhat more strict that simply saying "he is notable." --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Melanie, Thank you for taking the time to inform me of my error in using the "Keep" more than once. I will admit, I am new to this. However, an explanation of such, as you so respectful left, would have been more appropriate from Davey2010. In addition, the false accusation of me making comments under false alias is absurd. I will not tolerate that sort of attack. So Yes, he has been rude and disruptive. And for also "deleting" my comments and augmenting them. That is Unacceptable. However, I will allow the your strike through of the additional keeps above minus one. Thank you! BrandonWalker2014 (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to review the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which contains a great deal of useful information about procedures at WP:Articles for deletion. As to why one source is considered reliable and another is not, take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also, the discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can be quite illuminating. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Tokyogirl79 and Davey2010, coverage is not significant in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Muharemović[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NFOOTY as a search of the individual doesn't reveal any aspect that indicates either significance or notability. Jab843 (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found some sources as to who he is and have added one which is used on several other articles, the information on that is often used for player statistics in infoboxes. I've added one category but it is largely down to the original author to construct a proper article. --The Old Boy In Town (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 5 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. Keep vote above merely confirms he exists, not that he is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll go with GiantSnowman on this one. I understand, that he does exist, but just "playing football" by itself does not grant notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:16, 13 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. Note: Well done on the article improvements, well done. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura McCullough[edit]

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

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

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

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

Spam for non-notable minor poet; the sources are promotional junk. Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable poet, article mostly written by COI editor.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a lot of this is from here web page.[66] Although she wrote it, there's no indication that it is copyright free so at the moment it doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same reasons as nom: non-notable, as far as I can see, and also written by the subject. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, conflict of interest. Popcornduff (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all reasons above. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or move to WP:AFC, after removing copyvio. The article is definitely not acceptable in mainspace, but can be improved with the addition of citations to sources such as these: [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] —Anne Delong (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This autobiography is being defended by the author by loudly proclaiming bias against women instead of coming here and doing the simple thing of providing reliable sources indicating notability. That would instantly make the article a keep. I assume from that behaviour that she doesn't have any such sources so I don't see the benefit of userfying. Instead she should come back and try again when she really is notable...or better still wait for someone neutral to write the article. SpinningSpark 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think any of the ones I provided above are any good? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I hadn't read your comments (other than the bolded userfy) when I made my post. My comment was based on the content of the article and the author's reaction at the help desk. The sources you found make my comments too strong, ~~and I would not object to userfying on the basis of them~~, but they are still marginal. Putting aside any issues of reliability, all of them except one are book reviews, which are fine for establishing the notability of books, but more is needed in an article about the author. The remaining source is an interview. I don't believe that interviews on their own are sufficient. An interview is not independent commentary on the subject, it is the subject talking about herself. In short, we still do not have independent reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. SpinningSpark 22:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking my assent to userfy. It has become quite clear from this user's behaviour that she couldn't do anything sensible with a userfied draft, and in any case she should not be writing her own article due to WP:COI and WP:AUTO concerns. I would not object to userfying to an established editor in good standing, but it is not appropriate to userfy to the original author. SpinningSpark 00:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if these these sudden new accounts making "keep" postings are a taste of this editor's future contributions, they display the opposite of the collaborative attitude needed in a Wikipedia editor.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no — this is not the subject socking, these are fans and friends coming here because he subject made an appeal for support on her Facebook page. Obviously, that's contrary to what we seek at AfD, but unless one is a Wikipedian, that's not a known fact. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my delete per Carrite's work on the article. Still not inclined to positively call for a keep though. SpinningSpark 04:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to WP:AFC Obviously a newby not familiar with policy. I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry in case there are any poetry fans who would have a better idea of how reliable those sources are and who could improve the article. Please give it a week to see if someone takes on the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy/AfC~~ It seems to me that the multiple independent reviews Anne Delong found in the Potomac Journal and the California Journal of Women Writers could potentially satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Both journals seem to have some system of editorial control. Although the original author's reaction has not been ideal, why can't we give her a chance at improving the article? Altamel (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Great work by Carrite in salvaging this article, though I concur with Cullen328 that the article should give outside views more weight. Altamel (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-- I'm not sure if it's kosher to add Amazon links as they could be seen as promotional, but it seems that the subjects Amazon page confirms some of the links that need additional sources. Everything on the page is factual. There is not even a shred of opinion in this article. As far as using "Non-notable" just seems like an ad-hominem argument against the subject. For students that use Wikipedia for research, she may be quite notable and relevant to them. — TownFunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:53, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]

KEEP-- though some people who are not poets say that Laura is irrelevant or non-notable, they are not involved in the writing industry. As a professor of English, an MFA student, and someone who IS involved with a number of writing organizations, Laura's contributions ARE important and noteworthy. Her ability to edit, publish, to connect to any reader is an accomplishment that not many have...especially not the people who say that she should be deleted. I don't believe they even understand what non-notable is...which would be me. A writer who only has one published national article and a few newspaper articles to her name. Keep her page and support the arts...especially women being published. Thank you! Sandra — 50.155.254.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
KEEP-- only people who are poets,poetry teachers or actively involved in the poetry world should be able to participate here. Laura may not be a major poet, but she certainly is a productive and well-known contributor as a minor poet. She belongs here. But this is a good example of why Wikipedia is shit. The public, especially an uninformed public, should not be allowed to vote on or contribute to biographies or other types of information that is supposedly being presented in a kind of encyclopedia. The people who are trying to delete her have no idea what they are talking about. — Phanahoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:26, 5 August 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]

KEEP-- There is clearly no bias in this entry. The author, Laura McCullough, demonstrates through the list of publications and professional affiliations that she is a, for lack of a better descriptor, legitimate writer and accepted peer in the professional writing community. I can say with certainty that in light of Wikipedia's often dubious reputation for misinformation that to delete this entry would only further confirm that Wikipedia is a less than credible source. Wickedgoodpoet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedgoodpoet (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) — Wickedgoodpoet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hmm. Very unsuspicious. Popcornduff (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you all read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry and reconsider your votes. Popcornduff (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of creating a bunch of sock accounts, try reading our notability guideline which is our basic criteria for inclusion here. Telling other editors they don't know what they are talking about or can't contribute unless they are poets is unacceptable. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. If you are really not ok with that principle I don't know why you want to be here in the first place. SpinningSpark 00:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are not apt to be sock accounts, but rather newcomers (fans and friends) who were canvassed here by the subjects request to chime in at Facebook. Obviously, little weight will be given to opinions on both sides of the question not backed by policy and canvassing is a party foul (albeit only a party foul of which Wikipedians are aware). Still, not socks. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or AfC If enough secondary sources can be supplied, then article can be recreated. For now though, not sufficiently notable. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 00:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-- Wikipedia is supposedly an amalgam of community contribution and all of the contributions on this page are factual, if there's an issue with citing sources then make it clear what you would like cited as opposed to deleting the page entirely. Laura McCullough is an immensely important writer in the poetry community and should not be dismissed because of the opinions of people who are not privy to the influence of her work; in particular, you'd be hindering the students that are and will be researching her work based on her presence in classrooms and the poetry community. To count it against her that she has brought it to the attention of her community that people who are not of note in said community are attempting to delete her Wikipedia entry is actually a citing of a major source that those calling for deletion are not privy to. Perhaps, instead of deletion, this community that has come here to respond to this deletion can rewrite the entry if that pleases the non-democratic board of people who are for the deletion of this entry. Ian Khadan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankhadan (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Iankhadan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Incubate~~ Keep – Definite WP:POTENTIAL. Given the recent flurry of comments and the links provided by McCullough time is needed to work through the article. Also, McCullough has been given advice by other editors, which I assume she will take to heart. Learning about WP and the community should be her first priority. And then perhaps she can draft suggested or desired improvements to the article and post {{request edit}} on the article talk page for the changes she would like. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Carrite has done much to improve the article. With this in mind, I think Incubation is the best course of action. This would (or should) satisfy the various Facebook recruited editors who defend McCullough and would give Carrite more opportunity to develop the article. Moreover much of the delete commentary is no longer valid as COI and spammy issues have been/are being resolved by Carrite and others. 04:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) I'm back to Keep. Per WP:ANYBIO "The person ... has been nominated for [a well-known and significant award or honor] several times." In this case the criteria has been met and the article references the nominations. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – for those who are new to Wikipedia, the guideline we follow for poets & their notability is to be found at WP:CREATIVE. I recommend that they check the link and consider before posting here. – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability per nominator. Sarah 04:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I was asked to comment here by this woman and this woman's case is crap. This isn't LinkedIn, her page looks like that. We can't just all post our resumes on Wikipedia. FYI, Facebook is not a recruiting tool for your minions lady. Helgahoward (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Helgahoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment Canvassing on the persons Facebook page [75]. If someone can advise them about our rules on WP:CANVASS, that would be appreciated. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The works by the author, biographies of the author, etc., are not useful in asserting notability; what is ultimately required for inclusion is third-party coverage. All I see from the links provided by the subject of the article at the talk page are, at best, a handful of book reviews from sources that are questionable as reliable sources of secondary information. I do not believe that sufficient evidence of meeting WP:GNG has been presented or is available. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a slam-dunk deletion and I urge people to do the due diligence of a search. This actually passes GNG. HERE is an interview with McCullough from the California Journal of Women Writers. And then there is THIS interview with Nanofiction. THIS may be a blog post, but it would certainly be helpful in the sourcing out of a NPOV article. I believe THIS from Poets and Artists does count to GNG. THIS from Baltimore Review might fall under the umbrella of self-sourcing, but it's a plausibly close call. This is clearly a serious, published, and esteemed poet who meets our guidelines for general notability as the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage. The fact that the article in its current state is terrible is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrible" BLP articles shouldn't be in mainspace, even if the subject is notable. That's why I suggested userfication. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article improvement workshop or the quality control department, this is just where we decide whether a topic is sufficiently notable according to WP rules for an article to be constructed. Fixing the hundreds of thousands of crap articles is part of the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I visited McCullough's page to see the nature of her appeal for intervention here. I wasn't able to post to tell her that this was counterproductive to the cause of coming up with a neutral interpretation of the nomination in light of our notability rules. Fortunately, it turns out that she did do the one important thing, to list up third-party coverage for consideration. Here is her list:

Reviews

http://www.wordforword.info/vol18/Pollard.html
http://thelinebreak.wordpress.com/.../laura-mcculloughs.../
http://thepotomacjournal.com/issue9/laura_mccullough.html
http://contrarymagazine.com/.../laura-mccullough-speech.../
http://www.guernicamag.com/.../laura_mccullough_reading.../

Interviews

http://nanofiction.org/.../five-questions-with-laura...
http://tcjww.org/2014/02/10/interview-laura-mccullough/
http://www.poetsandartists.com/laura-mccullough/
http://realitysandwich.com/.../what_men_want_interview.../
http://poems.com/special_features/prose/essay_hicok2.php
http://poetsonadoption.blogspot.com/.../laura-mccullough...

My view is that this — together with what Anne DeLong and I have listed above — is sufficient for a GNG pass... Carrite (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this ends Keep, I promise to rewrite it to get it up to our standards. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over approach. This article is too tainted. Delete it and rewrite it without the CoI problems. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's more or less what I mean. I need to go work on my deck for a couple hours, I'll come work on this for an hour or two when I'm done or it gets too hot... I have attempted to make email contact with the subject to help me make sure I get the basic details right. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrites sources and the fact that he's ~~gonna rewrite~~ improved it alot - I hate to see articles like this get deleted so I say give it another chance. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've worked it over and the COI complaint is no longer valid. Those who opined "Userfy" are urged to weigh in again up or down. Carrite (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I cannot see any legitimate argument for deleting this article. The information presented is factual and sourced. Restatement of facts presented elsewhere is not a copyright violation -- one cannot copyright facts. All material quoted is indicated as such, and the source is provided. Arguments that McCullough is not notable seem laughable for some one who knows the publishing industry in general and poetry specifically. Publication in "Guernica," "Georgia Review" and "American Poetry Review," for example, suggest some significant recognition of her talent. Likewise, publication of several chapbooks and full-length collections of poetry likewise suggestions significant recognition of her talent. The failure of the naysayers here to recognize the presses more likely reflects their lack of familiarity with the many small presses that keeps the poetic tradition alive. Sincerely, David M. Lawrence (journalist, author of two books, and former board member of James River Writers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbyssWriter (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry notability standards – Editors are invited to look at the standards listed here: WP:POETRYSTANDARDS. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just going to add my two cents, totally new to editing or commenting on a page so please excuse my informal placement. This page should be kept, not only is Laura McCullough an accomplished poet but who's page is objective and informative. There is a good amount of references users I refer you to prove the importance of keeping the page of a excellent poet and teacher of which I am a former student. 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)DNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAPRCBCC (talk • contribs) — SAPRCBCC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep due to overhaul by Carrite. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent work by Carrite, new version passes WP:CREATIVE ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 08:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and improved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's inception may be tainted, and can discount the sockpuppet/meatpuppet KEEP !votes (curiously all in solid caps), but nonetheless WorldCat reveals 6 works in 233 libraries worldwide, and as has been mentioned Carrite is giving the article a good overhaul and adequate attention to make it retainable. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent improvements by Carrite and others (thanks to all) convince me that she is a notable poet, and that the article should stay. I would like to see more quotes by literary critics, and a little less by McCullough herself. This would eliminate the remaining promotional tone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My train got delayed so apologies for arriving very late here. Looking at the present version of the article[76] (and nothing in the history), the article is quite fine, it meets our WP:NPOV policy and notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable published author -- how can there be any argument for deletion? SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 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 no consensus. If desired, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Scott[edit]

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

Advert. Laun chba ller 20:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no justification for deleting this as an advert. Scott has received plenty of significant coverage. Highbeam brings up dozens of articles in publications such as the Boston Globe and Boston Herald, and GBooks articles from Billboard and Option. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I managed to find is a couple of articles detailing him being the focus of a court case; see CapeCod Online, Boston Edge and Boston Globe (most of the article is behind a pay wall). The only thing google brings up unrelated to the court case is this interview with Billboard Magazine 1. JTdale ^Talk 15:40, 12 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 ♔ 06:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe merge and redirect to The Lost 45s. Like Michig, I find that there is extensive coverage of Scott and his longrunning radio/internet show through HighBeam [77](and I wish HighBeam covered other major cities as well it does Boston). These, for example [78][79][80]. And here's a Billboard feature: [81] I am not sure how much notability he has independent of the show so a merge and redirect may be appropriate--and while we are at it we can add some sources to that article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:19, 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 04:42, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:33, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 17:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. Airplanegirl394 ✈️ 10:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A merge and redirect per Arxiloxos would be fine by me. --Michig (talk) 10:41, 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 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Africa/Abidjan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Africa/Abidjan

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

No evidence this is a notable topic, simply an identifier code. Wikipedia is not a database. I would also like to nominate for deletion all the related, identical articles in Category:tz database, though it is not economical for me to tag all 300+ of these non-notable database points. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:20, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not clear what provision of WP:NOT is being invoked by nominator - WP:NOTDATABASE isn't a thing. These articles appear to be useful and encyclopedic. ~KvnG 15:21, 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. SpinningSpark 19:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Washi (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Similar reason for my previous request to delete Typhoon Parma (disambiguation) and Typhoon Pepeng (disambiguation) as per WP:DAB and WP:TWODABS unless if this has other storms named "Washi" aside from those two. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 08:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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 04:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primary topic with one other meaning capable of being referenced in a hatnote makes disambiguation superfluous. bd2412 T 20:15, 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, czar ♔ 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Twodabs standard isn't nearly enough to justify the damage caused by creating dead links. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, it is blatanty nonsensical having a dab page for just two entries one of them being a primary topic. Better served by a hatnote. Cavarrone 10:17, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Tropical Storm Washi" is clearly the primary topic. Per WP:TWODABS, there is no need to have a separate disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 06:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The appropriate dab hatnote has been on the primary topic article since 18 December 2011, the day after the article for the 2011 storm was created. It was added with this edit. When this disambiguation page was created ten hours earlier, it may not have been possible to determine which storm, if either, was the primary topic. Hindsight is 20/20. It would be interesting to hear from @Jason Rees:, who apparently made the decision in 23 February 2012 that the 2011 storm was primary. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the deletion or non deletion of this page, however i do note that there are several TC disambiguation page that could be deleted along with this page. There are only three links to this article outside of the links caused by the deletion process. It is worth noting that the 2005 version only caused a handfull of deaths where as the 2011 version caused >1000 deaths and the name was retired by the WMO's Typhoon Committee in February 2012. I would have made the call that this article is the primary one based on the retirement and WPTC Standards which generally dictate names that are retired get the main article. Generally speaking a retired name is a name that has become a general household name. There is also no article for Tropical Storm Washi 2005 yet - jsut a redirect to the 2005 PTS.Jason Rees (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Kem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated before and was deleted, however the article creator recreated it and failed to address the previous reason for why it was initally deleted in the newly created version. No reliable sources that's independent of the subject were provided. Stanleytux (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article is not notable. Moreover, this article was previously deleted. Versace1608 (Talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets criterias 8, and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since Lil Kem meets two criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.--Coal Press Nation (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see that The Headies are at the same level as " Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis" awards. I also can't see anything that fits criterion 10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - he's released a video for a single of his, which is not the same thing (and the single is hardly notable anyway). Peridon (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a clear Wikipedia guideline that places Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice, Grammis, etc above The Headies Award? If there is any can someone direct me to it? I personally do not think the artist is notable enough for Wikipedia because it has not garnered enough coverage in reliable sources and the category he was nominated for was just a MINOR category but saying that a grammy nomination in place of headies would have made it stay (All other things remaining unchanged) is what I totally disagree with Darreg (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: You should direct your comment to Peridon. Hopefully he'll respond to this. The fact that The Headies do not nominate or give awards to international artists outside of Africa is the only reason I can think of that would make The Headies not be among the awards mentioned. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to contribute to this. I have to agree that The Headies is not on the same level as Grammy awards et al. Not for anything other than the fact that the system through which The Headies operate is quite different from the Grammys (and that system generally makes an award to look "unserious"). The Headies' winners are voted by the general public and that makes the award not to be an "award for excellence" which the Grammy is. There was a time when Kora Awards used to be an equivalent of the grammys, I don't know if the standard is still there.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about the limiting to Africa - it's quite a big place with a lot of music, isn't it? It's more the magazine readers poll aspect. Yes, the Gramophone Award is a magazine based thing, but it's awarded by the critics, not an all too easily managed public poll. (Not the same as the Grammy, but also in the top award category.) Peridon (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt - I thought I was seeing things but nope this has definitely been recreated to the exact same standards that got it deleted the first time round, Nothings inproved at all, Still promo bs that belongs elsewhere, I'm not to fussed on the salting but just a suggestion to the closing admin. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, let's say that it is the exact same article. In that case, it should not have been deleted the first time, as per Coal Press Nation's arguments. Anarchangel (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that means you think the article passes WP:NBAND? Peridon (talk) 15:14, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: I agree that the system of voting makes The Headies award to look like an un-serious award. I personally do not think Nigeria have a major excellence based music award. But Headies is currently the most popular Nigerian "music only" award ceremony so I think that should count for something. There is no clear defination on what will make a musical award "major" according to Wikipedia guidelines. If it were to be a major category I would have given it a Weak Keep but since it's a minor one I'd remain indifferent on this one. Darreg (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rookie of the Year category that the subject was nominated for is not a reputable category. Per this source, the organizers of The Headies started handing out this award in 2012. It is not reputable when compared to the other categories. It doesn't get mention with the rest of the categories. I am just finding out that this category actually exist. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can cross out criteria 8 then since he did not even win the award. Darreg (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I reckon 10 goes out the window too as the only 'media' thing I can see is his video for his own single. I would say that this criterion is intended to be for people who have provided the music for a notable game, or something like that. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant awards, no significant music/videos, inadequate coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:45, 13 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.

[1] ttp://www.executedtoday.com/tag/furman-v-georgia/

[1]