Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 August	7 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaDon Coffey[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, local non-notable judge. Infobox lists person as a US congressman, no evidence found supporting that. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also note that rarely keep justices of the peace. Furthermore, from what I see there, he does not meet my standards for jurists. Get back to me if I'm wrong. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Position does not pass WP:NPOL, and the quality and depth of sourcing provided is not enough to get him over the WP:GNG bar either. Article as written is basically a thinly veiled campaign brochure, which is not the type of content we allow on here. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Elected as a judge, which is insufficient for a pass of the special high bar for politicians. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 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 from closer: Kudos on the improvements, thanks. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman[edit]

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

This is a contested prod. I stumbled on this article during Wikipedia:Random page patrol and it appears to be a non-notable political documentary. Per WP:NOTFILM a film either needs to meet the WP:GNG through multiple reliable independent sources or it needs to be presumptively notable in absence of such sources (see the guideline for a full list; no evidence this film meets any of them). I found five sources in WP:HIGHBEAM which mentioned this film by name and none were more than passing mention save a partisan review by Thaddeus McCotter, which is neither reliable nor independent. A site search of news.google.com for "Fire from the Heartland" did not produce any hits. There are plenty of contemporary mentions (see this from Politico), but no lasting coverage. Anything Bachmann did in 2010 would acquire this kind of passing coverage. It might be possible to merge this into Citizens United (organization) or Michele Bachmann, but the former merely contains a list of movies and the latter, despite being lengthy, neither discusses this film nor links to it. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done some cleaning and moved the sources into the article, but so far I'm not finding much else. I did find a BlogHer post, but I don't think it'd be usable since it's not by a staff member as far as I can tell. I left it just in case someone else wants to take a look at it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

~~Weak~~ Keep Aside from finding coverage in Andrew Breitbart's conservative news and opinion website Breitbart.com,[1] and by conservative Amy Ridenour in BlogHer,[2], and in her own blog,[3] I found an article in Des Moines Register, and it was spoken of in Washington Post,[4] The Atlantic,[5] Politico,[6] Cagle Post,[7] Daily Caller,[8] Fox News,[9] and others found through Wayback Machine searches. [10] This will never have the coverage and public attention of Star Wars, but it seems that the WP:GNG requirements of WP:NF are met. What say, Tokyogirl79? And pardon nominator, but please read WP:NTEMP. Appreciating that it does seem you looked, we do not require "lasting coverage", and the film subject need not be the sole focus of any source. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt. Sources listed above constitute multiple independent nontrivial reliable and meet the WP:GNG even if the current article has issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Good job on finding more sources, guys! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although Breitbart.com is certainly not a reliable source, I think this film is notable. Keep'. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from footnotes already showing in the piece. It is really that simple. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kudos to MichaelQSchmidt and Tokyogirl79 for article improvements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 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. nominator withdraws the nomination (non-admin closure) » nafSadh did say 16:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VVBHSS[edit]

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

Is this institute notable? » nafSadh did say 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: by convention, secondary schools are considered notable. Better to put some effort into trying to improve it rather than suggesting deletion. PamD 08:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have moved the article to Vidyadhiraja Vidya Bhavan Higher Secondary School. PamD 08:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-:@Nafsadh: Although the school is notable and recognized by the board of Center Govt. of India, CBSE. But still the quality of the article is really worse. My suggestion, "the article can be improved." CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Celaschi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose notability derives entirely from positions in student government and from a general election they didn't win, with no properly sourced indication that they would pass WP:NPOL in an encyclopedia with a general audience. Sourcing is almost entirely to primary sources, so they don't get past WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Student politics doesn't count and hasn't shown any significance in term of national politics. Cowlibob (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the arguments of the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 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. despite the lack of comments, admitted self-created word with only other wikipedia articles on sources, speedy candidateSecret ^account 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sepaya[edit]

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

Looks like a dictionary entry. » nafSadh did say 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^[1]

Smiler78 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC) I'm new and don't know how to communicate with you.... the word Sepaya runs in our family for many generations; My grandfather's grandmother was Metoacian Smiler78 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.granitsol.com/Default.asp?PageId=13684&FragmentId=469125

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, 'sepaya' is only a 'word' - and probably not of notable use. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikitionary is. Oh! and yes, this is how you can communicate with me. --» nafSadh did say 01:54, 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 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yobou Jean Joel Thome[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. An example of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 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 redirect to Phoenix Games. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalmatians[edit]

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

Similar to the recently deleted and salted Dalmatians 3, the other entries of the series (bundled below) have no significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?), or any meaningful hits apart from listings in a video game reliable sources search. There is the possibility of offline magazine sources, but I haven't been able to find any.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmatians 3

czar ♔ 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Phoenix Games. Fails WP:GNG to have their own articles. Nonetheless all three games, as well as Dalmatians 3, are notable enough to redirect to the publisher.good888 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all four games (including Dalmatians 3!) to Pheonix Games. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect To Phoenix Games. Frmorrison (talk) 21:36, 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 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Callum[edit]

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

No indication of WP:NOTABILITY. WP:SPA creator whose username indicates a WP:COI. Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local activist that lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. The citation given is mainly about Callum's organization. An independent search for sources gets a hit from The Gleaner that quotes Callum but provides no biograpical depth. Not enough to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Closest thing to a claim of notability is that he's CEO of a non-notable chapter of a non-notable organization in Jamaica. Even if the Jamaican organization were notable, the local chapter would not be, and the head of the local chapter is not, either. WP:NOTINHERITED². TJRC (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP — actually, in all likelihood an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username — about a person who has not held any role that would qualify him for inclusion under WP:NPOL, and without enough reliable sourcing to get him past WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 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 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jebi Mather Hisham[edit]

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

Non-notable Member of the city council of a town of 24,000. Members of city councils of a few very large cities where the council is particularly important (like Chicago and NYC) can be notable, but she's counselor in a city of only 25,000, which is would not be. ( Heads of national political parties are notable, but she's head of a state branch of a youth wing of a party, which is another matter entirely.

That leaves the GNG. The only reliable sources do no more than list her being present at meetings. This is not substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd add in that there is no significant coverage that we expect. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:NPOL NQ talk 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG WP:RS WP:NPOL --Jersey92 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 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. Secret ^account 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire Carr[edit]

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

Band with no substantive or properly sourced claim to notability under WP:NMUSIC, citing only their own Bandcamp page (which is a primary source) for "sourcing". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they actually achieve something that actually gets them over the NMUSIC hump, but a band is not automatically entitled to an article on Wikipedia just because they exist. (Also possible WP:COI, as the creator's username corresponds closely to the name of one of the band members.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage in reliable sources for this act; just the Facebook/Bandcamp/social media links that are already in the article. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 23:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 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 06:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rikaan Ray[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC — the article merely asserts his existence, and sources it exclusively to discogs.com and blog entries, with not so much as a scrap of reliable source coverage. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he starts actually gaining actual media coverage for the debut album that he apparently just released a week ago, but he's not entitled to keep an article on here just because he exists, if he hasn't actually passed an NMUSIC criterion yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Binturong's reasoning. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources found; all I can come up with are mentions/profile pages on Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, and similar social media sites. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow talk 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and above. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Secret ^account 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Boardman[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Subject is non-notable - he is not the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. Of the two references listed in the article, one merely lists his name and contact details and the other doesn't even mention him. Article claims (without citation) that he is a leader in his field, although his publication history pales in comparison to others in his field such as John Pendry, Victor Veselago or David R. Smith. Furthermore, the page was created by someone who claims to work in the same research group as Boardman, suggesting a potential COI. Una Laguna^Talk 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not familiar with the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications or the Institute of Physics, but he is apparently a fellow in both of those societies, and a fellow of the SPIE. If any of these are prestigious, then he'd be notable per criterion 3 of WP:PROF. There are also suggestions that he was the director of some institutes and the "UK Voice" of some kind of international collaboration? I don't have enough knowledge of this area to judge how significant these are, but my intuition would be that he's probably going to be a borderline keep.

Oh, I should also note that this article is kinda terrible and certainly needs to be cleaned up, but WP:DINC. I didn't find anything obvious for him in terms of coverage outside of academia. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the Institute of Physics passes WP:PROF#C3. A clear failure of WP:BEFORE by the nom. -- 101.117.56.81 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have read WP:PROF - I linked to it at the start of the nom - but if the only verifiable information about the guy is his fellowships, should he be the subject of an article on Wikipedia (see WP:PROF#General notes point one)? Perhaps I'm underestimating the importance of having fellowships, but I'm not persuaded an article that won't get beyond stub-class is worth having on Wikipedia. Maybe you guys can set me straight, but that's the feeling I get, especially when other researchers in the field with Wikipedia articles (see above) have so much more coverage (correct me if I'm wrong). Una Laguna^Talk 11:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the fellow designations named above, he was a named a fellow of The Optical Society in 2006. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As with the SPIE fellowship mentioned by Truth or consequences-2 below, an OSA fellowship is the lowest rank occupied by 10% of all OSA members (see here) and so probably not the "highly selective" fellowship WP:PROF#C1 refers to. Una Laguna^Talk 08:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - impressive though the fellowships look, if one digs, it turns out the ones mentioned in the article are as part of U.K. associations, not the international type that would more likely meet WP:PROF#C1. The SPIE recognition is as plain "Fellow member", which is the lowest rank and covers a good thousand people ([see here]). Likewise there is no reliable claim to major editorship; the subject no longer features on the board linked in the article [and here], and the wording of the link implies that what this was for plain membership on the editorial board, not editorship-in-chief. The citation record is too weak to otherwise pass WP:PROF, and the actual "faculty page" [here] is all but empty, signifying an insignificant career in the absence of evidence of a stronger track record during previous employment. Finally, there is no coverage to assert WP:GNG. This is typical of BLPs that look impressive based on big words and fancy-sounding honors, and deflate into non-Wikiworthiness once probed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IOP is an international society. And even if it was UK-only, being a fellow would meet WP:PROF#C3. National-level societies (e.g. the National Academy of Sciences) are specifically included under that guideline. And he is a full Fellow of SPIE (http://spie.org/x38.xml). Since there are, on average, only 20-odd Fellows elected each year (about 1100 over the past 50 years), that is indeed a "highly selective honour." His blank faculty page does not "signify an insignificant career" -- it just signifies that his energies are elsewhere. -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching for "AD Boardman" on Google Scholar finds a h-index of 32, which also passes WP:PROF#C1 (quite easily). -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe. Then again, even if one follows the h-index fallacy, searching for his actual name in various combinations finds a GS h-index of no more than 16, which does not pass WP:PROF#C1 for this (very) highly cited field.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but searching for his actual name doesn't find all of his papers, because he publishes using his surname and first initials. It's not reasonable to exclude half his papers and then claim he fails WP:PROF#C1. In fact, he passes WP:PROF#C1, as noted above. -- 101.117.29.137 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (e.g. seven publications listed by Google scholar with over 100 cites, with the top one having 776 cites, in a search for "author:ad-boardman"). The society fellowships are also suggestive of the same conclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What are the criteria here, and why? From near-WP:SPA 101.117.57.51, we get that anything with the same initials should be counted, regardless of whether it is the same person, no question asked please. From David Eppstein, we get an arbitrary cutoff of N1 papers over N2 citations, from one source known to be biased towards hard sciences (GS) as mentioned in policy. No attention to field, vintage, authorship (I for one would be more impressed with the single-edited book, though like the rest of the work it is surprisingly low on citations per year)... Never mind "suggestive". Wikipedia can do better, or at least clearer, no?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that all the top 32 "AD Boardman" papers should be counted is that they all have a "University of Salford" affiliation, as you would see if you did the Google Scholar search and looked at the papers. They obviously are all the same person, since there are clearly not two different "A.D. Boardman"s in the Physics Department there. David Eppstein's way of looking at it is also valid: 2500+ citations for the top 8 papers is impressive. As to alleged bias in GS, that is only relevant in considering AfDs for subjects outside the hard sciences. Also, I'm not an SPA, I don't care much for your "no question asked please" comment, and I wonder why you're so keen to exclude from consideration papers that the subject of the article has clearly written. -- 101.117.2.208 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have a few 100+ citation papers in the field of metamaterials is nothing special. Even less so when some of those papers and textbooks have been knocking about for 3 decades. I do not think his publication/citation record is impressive given the context of the field he is working in. Una Laguna^Talk 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have guidelines like WP:PROF for a reason; to get away from subjective assessments of notability. A h-index of 32 is well over our usual C1 threshold, so it's really an open-and-shut case. And, in spite of what you say, 2500+ citations for the top 8 papers is indeed significantly more than ordinary. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is WP:PROF does is specifically say h=32 and 2500 cites in top 8 papers is significant? It doesn't, because to take these numbers at face value without considering their context is incredibly naive. (It also sounds like an exceptionally subjective criteria to me... is the cutoff at h=30 or h=35? 2,500 cites in top 10 or top 20 papers?) As I have said, citation records such as Boardman's are really nothing extraordinary in the field of metamaterials. I'll repeat that in case you missed it: metamaterials is a very highly-cited field and I would be surprised if a tenured academic in the field had anything less than his citation record. I could quite easily list a dozen academics in his field with similar/superior citation records who definitely fail WP:PROF. Furthermore, you are failing to take into account the flaws of the h-index metric. Boardman is not a young academic, and the h-index is very heavily biased in favour of academics with longer publication histories. h=32, 2,500 cites in top 8 papers is not unusual in metamaterials and even less so when the academic in question has been publishing for 40 years (many of the key metamaterials researchers have been active for less than half that time and accrued even more citations than him). Una Laguna^Talk 06:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved with AfD for many years now. We usually take h=20 (give or take a little, depending on the field) as the threshold. Boardman is clearly well over that. And I note that you provide no support or evidence for your assertions about the field of metamaterials. I also note from your user profile that your own academic field is the same as Boardman's, at another university in the same city, and I'm wondering if there is some less than friendly rivalry here? -- 101.117.88.156 (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch? Please stick to the deletion discussion. (FWIW, his research occupies a very different realm of plasmonics/metamaterials to mine - zero overlap, no opportunity for competition.) I am happy to provide evidence for my assertion that having a few 100+ citations in this field is nothing special: Zayats, Zhang, Qiu, Hibbins, Grigorenko, Wurtz, Oulton, Barnes, Nordlander, Maier, Polman, Garcia de Abajo, Koppens. h=20 is very common in the field, so I would pick a much higher threshold, and in the case of Boardman I would raise it even higher based on the fact that he has been publishing many years longer than most of these guys. Una Laguna^Talk 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we bump the cutoff to h=25 or h=30 (appropriate for a highly cited field), Boardman still passes WP:PROF#C1. And when I look at those of your examples with a higher h-index than Boardman's, such as William L Barnes at Exeter or Peter Nordlander at Rice, they seem to me unquestionably notable, and should indeed also have Wikipedia articles. If your beef is that Barnes and Nordlander are more notable than Boardman, you may well be right, but that doesn't alter the fact that Boardman passes WP:PROF#C1. Indeed, compared to some of the academics that have passed AfD in the past, he passes with flying colours. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So here we are down to the h index from GS as sole argument. (Which h index varies between the 117's and Randykitty's below, too, though that is a matter of course.) Is that the basis for a sound decision?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep I did a (rather conservative) search for "Boardman AD" on the Web of Science and checked the most cited articles for whether they were by this Boardman or perhaps another one. Note that WoS always gives much lower citation rates than GS, because it is much more selective in its sources (GS strives to have everything, WoS only covers the most influential journals). I got a total of 212 publications (I didn't check them all, as that would be a lot of work, but I didn't see any that were not by him in checking the highest-cited ones, so even if there are a few, it won't influence the results very much), that have been cited 3800 times (highest ones: 748, 286, 144, 139, and 96), with an h-index of 28. The arguments above that better-cited persons don't have an article is a kind of inverted WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Whether the nom likes it or not, this kind of citation figures is way beyond what we usually take as indicating that a subject has significantly influenced her/his field (PROF#1). Perhaps these contributions pale in comparison to some other muminaries in this field, but everybody pales when compared to, say, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein. WP's coverage is larger than those shining stars. As 101 says above, if there are people with better citation records than Boardman that don't have an article, the solution is to create articles for those people and not waste time here trying to get this scientist bio deleted. (PS: as an aside, I should say that personally I find a WoS cutoff of h=30 -GS h=34 or so- much more discriminating between "run-of-the-mill" and "above average", but the reality is that consensus in AfD debates has accepted a GS index of 20 as sufficient for high citation-density fields like this one, and indexes of around 10 or sometimes even lower for humanities or mathematics, for example). --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here I appreciate the greater depth of discussion. But are Wikipedians aware of the horror that is the h-index, in the first place? Not with Randykitty here, but elsewhere it is sad to see the argument boil down to a h cutoff.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must admit I am surprised by how simple the keep arguments based on citations are. Please don't take that as a criticism - I'll admit that maybe I've been over-thinking the application of WP:PROF. But surely the age and nature of highly-cited works should at least be taken into account? Two of his highest-cited works are textbooks, which are likely to be well-cited regardless of his stature in the field. And while the number 748 is impressive, that particular paper was published over 40 years ago, translating to 18 cites per year, which feels less impressive. If one takes publication age into account in this way then most of the works in his "top 10" become much less significant. This is one of the biggest criticisms of the h-index. WP:PROF seems silent on this issue, but in this case it's a point that feels relevant. What do people think? Una Laguna^Talk 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "regulars" at academics AFDs are very well aware of the hazards of boiling down someone's career to a single igure (with RL administrators had the same wisdom). In any case, I think the weakness of the h-index is more that a low index does not necessarily mean that someone is not notable, whereas it will be very rare the other way around. I remember a case of a physicist who had a sizable h, but always was somewhere in the middle among dozens upon dozens of co-authors (must have been high-energy physics) and in the end the conclusion was not notable despite the high h. Any statistic needs interpretation and we therefore cannot have an absolute cutoff value in PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Randykitty. But along Una Laguna I will add another glaring weakness of the h index as used here: Any mediocre scholar, given time, will be turned by such a recipe into WP-worthy. Just publish 20+ citation-worthy papers (relative piece of cake in Boardman's field) and let age. Though this mostly applies to authors of the last thirty-forty years (the subject here is smack in the sweet spot). As a light aside: Funny you should mention Newton in a discussion of someone whose main international recognition (albeit one of over a thousand) is by an optics society.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1/ As I said, I think 20 is indeed a bit low. 2/ Nonetheless, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of reaching even an h-index of 20. Over half of all scientific publications are not cited even once. Ever... 3/ Boardman's index is well above 20. The way the h-index works, 28 is not 40% higher, but much more (that is, this is not a linear thing). 4/ Longevity is not all. Rare is the article that still gets cited regularly 5 years after it was published. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far from me to disparage academics. But actually it is an urban legend that most scientific publications never get cited, and that is certainly not true in Boardman's meta-field. See here and here. As for short citation cycles, again that's an exaggerated issue (see second source), and certainly less likely in materials science than say in IT.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:27, 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 Soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry at Ptochocracy. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ptochocracy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article was PRODed as such, but the prod was declined with the edit summary: looking at Google Books, it appears to be a notable concept. I disagree. A search in Google Books does turn up a fair number of hits for this term, but no further exposition. The word is apparently a neologism coined by a British aristocrat sometime in the mid to late 18th century, in a passage repeated and quoted in several other books. There is no indication this term has ever been used as anything more than a shorthand notation for "rule by the poor" and no indication that any significant attention has been given to such a system of rule. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, which IS a dictionary and doesn't have this as an entry, and then soft redirect to Wiktionary. See kakistocracy for a good example of how I think we should do this.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do as the Marshall says. I was going to suggest the same. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wiktionary entry created. Soft redirect possible on conclusion of this AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per S Marshall, soft redirect to the newly created Wiktionary entry.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Until there's something more to say, this isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If someone wants to expand the article with reliable sources, that's fine. Right now, I don't think there's enough coverage. It seems most popular in "did you know" trivia lists and dictionaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bishop (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor (pop. 11K) with no strong claim of notability that would get him past WP:NPOL — the only substantive sourcing here involves a two-day blip of coverage of a single controversial comment which just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage of Bishop is routine coverage of small town politics. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I saw the story in some news blog. So what? Bearian (talk) 17:26, 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 redirect to The Minnesota Wrecking Crew. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "Nug" Nahrgang[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person "notable" only as a shortlived Internet meme, which cites only a single reliable source — and even that one's an unretrievable dead link from a defunct publication, at that. Perhaps this made sense by the standards of 2006 when this was first created, but in 2014 it's a WP:BLP1E without enough sourcing to properly get him past WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Minnesota Wrecking Crew. I can't find any sources that show he meets WP:GNG as an individual but he's a member of a group that's notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Merge) to The Minnesota Wrecking Crew. I don't see evidence of notability. It doesn't look like he was able to transition from meme to mainstream coverage. Mustard Man should also be redirected to the same target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. However, on the question of whether meeting the SNG can of themselves establish notability, a question that the AfD was asked to look at, there was no consensus. This is hardly a question that could be answered at a single AfD in any case.
I have a couple of comments about the conduct of this AfD. Firstly, the invitation to Masem to participate amounts to canvassing. Secondly, it was inappropriate to move a portion of the debate on to the talk page. That discussion was still relevant to the AfD debate and contained arguments for the closer including a call for speedy keep. SpinningSpark 11:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers Tschappat[edit]

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

I can find nothing to substantiate that this person passes WP:ATHLETE. He played 2 NFL games in 1921, but apparently garnered no stats as I was not able to find any. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Note, was asked to participate due to past discussions). Notability guidelines are presumptions that a topic is notable to allow time for sources to be found and/or develop. Here we have a player, long since deceased, with several decades of time for sources to be developed. While NGRIDIRON is met on the basis of playing a few games, there's clearly nothing else (I've done a cursory search, I will AGF that ArcAngel has done a deeper source evaluation, and in either case, would happy to be proven wrong if someone can reveal more detailed sourcing) that we can use to build the article. This is where understanding why notability (either GNG or the SNGs) is a presumption; we're clearly wrong that this person was notable. As such, deletion in this type of case is reasonable. This type of case (deleting an article that otherwise meets an SNG) should be exceptionable but allowable in how the GNG/SNG/notability presumptions work together. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passes WP:NGRIDIRON having played in the NFL (it was called the APFA at the time, but renamed the NFL the next year). Most of the regional newspapers that would have covered the 1921 NFL season are hidden behind pay walls or not on-line, making it very difficult to dig out the source materials without spending a lot of money. This is why the presumption of notability exists for NFL players. A little bit of digging did show that he not only played pro football for the Triangles, he was also an assistant coach in 1919 in the Ohio League, the regional pro league that gave birth to the NFL in 1920. Cbl62 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting the sources will be some work, but verifying that there are sources out there should not be. Also note that the presumption of notability applies to all topics whether we're talking the GNG or NSPORTS or the like; if sources cannot easily be located, that probably means the presumption was wrong. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator admits subject played professionally in what became the NFL. That's widely considered reason enough to keep.--11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Note. The above "keep" vote was cast by User:Paulmcdonald. His more detailed analysis is contained in comments that ArcAngel has moved to the Talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:NGRIDIRON pass per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, no one is ever probably going to look for this guy. This discussion is the only time that people will ever care about him. Also, if all sports people were removed from Wikipedia no one would really care. In 200 years who is going to care about Peyton Manning. People don't even remember hall of famers nowadays. Athletes are just relevant to their time period, once all the people that watched them are gone, no one else will have a reason to care. They're just playing a game anyway. How significant is that. Someone has to play it. There always has to be a League MVP no matter what. There won't always be a great inventor or something like that though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys keep this discussion going on for eternity. It's great entertainment. We could use some more participants to add to the fun though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: You're the one who created the Tschappat article and started this whole ball rolling. Are you saying that you believe the topic is irrelevant and should be deleted? Please clarify. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dagnabbit I've been caught. Seriously tho, If this actually does get deleted, there are thousands of articles like it. We should be consistent. Also, if the page started in the shape that is was in now, I don't think it would have ever been nominated. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't answer the question. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted unless people are going to be consistent and deleted a bunch of other articles. Why was this article singled out. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly because it's entirely possible that no single WP editor is aware that other articles of the same quality exist, but consider the version that was nominated. There was nothing that I could see that asserted the notability of this player, and what was there only passed WP:V. A couple of days had passed with no edits on it. I wonder - was I a bit hasty in this nomination? ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you didn't nominate it would probably still be a stub ha. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note some side discussions on issues of WP:N, WP:NGRIDIRON, and other aspected moved to talk page. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, never been a fan of these one or two game players who played such long ago that sources (if any) no longer exists. Current sources doesn't indicate any notability nor any information present on the article. WP:GNG trumps WP:ATHLETE. Secret ^account 18:11, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Sharma[edit]

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

Subject appears to be failing Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biographies because it lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. It does not even meet WP:ANYBIO standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - up coming? Fails WP:V and WP:N. CutestPenguin (Talk) 16:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Does not meet NACTOR. It's crystalballing, way too soon. As an aside Sameer Iqbal Patel from the same user needs to be AFDed as well, very dubious sourcing to indicate notability. Cowlibob (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject doesn't appears to be a notable model or actress.--Skr15081997 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Ritchie[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a blogger without enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he passes any of our notability rules — of the five sources being cited here, only #1 counts as substantive coverage of him. #2 and #3 both merely mention his name in passing as a commenter in coverage of something else, thus failing to be substantively about him, and #4 and #5 are both primary sources which cannot confer notability at all. I'm willing to withdraw this if good sourcing can be added to replace the crap, but he's not entitled to keep an article which only has one reliable source in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A blogger, but a very influential one. Editor-at-large and listed as one of the top people to look for on technology and Apple related stuff. References state it clearly, iguess we should keep the article. Aspiratrona (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Aspiratrona. Apple products expert, highly influential, multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not "multiple independent nontrivial reliable sources" being cited here — with one single exception, every last reference in this article is to primary sources and trivial coverage that is not sufficient coverage to get a person past GNG. If there's actually enough other coverage out there to get him past GNG, then by all means show your work so we can evaluate that properly — but he does not get past GNG on the basis of the sourcing as it exists now. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBC Canada looks nontrivial; same with Fortune magazine. Ditto Business Insider. Not sure what you're getting at, Bearcat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune: Rene Ritchie is not the subject of the coverage, but is merely mentioned in passing within an article whose subject is something else. It is, thus, not coverage of him. Business Insider: a blurb, a whopping 38 words long total, which is coverage of him but fails the part where the coverage has to be substantial. It is not enough to provide sources which confirm that he exists; he has to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article on here. Not 38-word blurbs, not "gives one quote in an article about something else"; substantial coverage of him. And I already identified the CBC article as a source that was substantively about him (see "only #1 counts as substantive coverage of him" in my original comment), so you're not schoolin' me anything I haven't already taken into account with that one — but one substantive source is not enough to get a person past GNG if it's the only substantive source in the pot. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie is clearly identified in many sources as an Apple expert; for me, the three sources above, by themselves, demonstrate notability, not even a borderline case. If still not satisfied, there are numerous other sources which can be combined to establish notability -- here is the rule -- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... These sources include Network World, Mac Observer, Mac World, here, here, Huffington Post, here, and here, and here -- none of these are mere mentions but sufficient to establish Ritchie as an Apple expert -- so again I really don't get why a case could be made that Ritchie is not notable. The picture that emerges is an influential Canadian blogger who is so well regarded that conventional Apple-oriented and computer-oriented trade publications routinely cite Ritchie as an Apple expert, with links to his iMore site, and who has a track record of making successful predictions, and no, I am not trying to school you, just making a case based on the rules. About your comment substantial coverage on him -- what's interesting is not Ritchie-as-a-person (eg what clothes he wears, what car he drives, what he thinks about world events) but Ritchie's Apple expertise -- that is what is interesting and notable -- substantial coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tomwsulcer. The topic passes WP:BASIC--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:44, 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 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waukegan Riot[edit]

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

I'm not particularly convinced that we actually need an article to explain that something didn't happen. I suppose that it might be possible to create and properly source an article about the distinction between an overblown "media frenzy" and the actual reality of the situation, but as written this is completely unsourced and resembles the thesis statement for an essay more than an encyclopedia article. Delete unless somebody can salvage this as something actually worth having in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'ummmm, uh, yeah I suppose this ought to be deleted as a bit of original research, seeing as how the claim that there was a riot is circulating around on right-wing agitprop forums and the like. I found real references to a riot in a commission report published back in the early 1920s but nothing for 1966 except these sites, which are obviously unreliable. However, by the same token I could not find anyone attempting to refute this assertion either. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is controverting it, that may be because it is not worth the penny. --Bejnar (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, hence fails WP:GNG, but also for failure to make a claim of notability, and as above. --Bejnar (talk) 17:52, 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 User:RHaworth per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.amazon.com/The-Girl-Who-Made-Sing/dp/1496986539". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Made Me Sing[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book, entry posted by the author, who also declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. Fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Current Rank: 7,548,683 on Amazon UK. and per nom. --Bejnar (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's also copyvio from the Amazon page. There's just nothing out there to show that this book is notable, so might as well give it a speedy end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend salting, as this appears to have been the second attempt to create a page about the book. I'll leave a note on the editor's page about self-promotion and COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. While the RTBF may affect us in the future, legal should decide when it impacts on us, not the community. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Hutch[edit]

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

Per 'right to be forgotten' takedown by Google. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Under point 1, unless this is a pointy case of WP:SK #2. No policy-based reason for deletion specified. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I wouldn't consider this pointy, as this comes under a variant of DOLT, the concern was that given it's a BLP there were something in the article that wasn't meeting those criteria, and that was what got it "suppressed" by Google.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF and take you at face value that this wasn't pointy, we haven't run into each other much, a nomination like this can easily appear as such. I appreciate you fleshing out your rationale here as well. It appears we will have quite a few eyes on the article now in any case, and any material that needs to be dealt with under our own policies will, I hope, be attended to promptly if they have not been already. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What got it "suppressed" by Google is a counter-productive European law which only applies to search engines. We're a content site, not a search engine- Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Beyond the point made by Joe Decker, the Streisand effect is already starting to kick in, he is substantially more notable than he was before the media started covering the request. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an American based website, Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the European ruling. While the article is still in its early stages (after nearly nine years), Hutch appears to be well enough known in Ireland to merit inclusion. Now awareness of this article has suddenly grown, the problem is likely to be the prevention of editors' turning the this article into a vendetta against the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As specified above, there's no reason to delete this article. Even the Europeans are only saying the search engines can't point at it, not that the data needs to be removed here. We are not a search engine, so their rules don't apply. - Denimadept (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia has it's own policy about contentious BLP though. It's also noted that the Irish Examiner Source in the article appears to be a dead link, rendering some of the articles claims, technically un-sourced.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case — this is why we include an accessdate in online citations, because online pages change. Such a citation is no less valid than a citation to a print source. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nyttend is precisely right. Also note that the Wayback Machine has an archive of that, e.g., [11]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete and even if the original wasn't very notable (although as mentioned above he's very well known in Ireland) the right to be forgotten request has increased the article profile significantly. Hideki (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decidedly so. Subject is notable and deserving of this article. Agree this will attract more attention to article, so it just needs to be watched for bias creep. We cannot just begin deleting articles based on Google or European terms. Fylbecatulous talk 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ~~trout~~ whale nominator. The "right to be forgotten" bullshit is something that makes me ashamed to be a European. It's already bad enough that search engines are forced to pull results people happen to dislike. It would be immensely worse if we begin to swallow this poison and self-censor ourselves obeying the whims of BLP subjects (something which is already dangerously present in some editors' view). Someone who nominates articles to self-censor WP is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, and, if WP had some balls, would be subject to sanctions. Even thinking of creating such dangerous precedents is a horrible, horrible move. That aside, notable, no policy reason for nomination, etc.etc.-keep that.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nomination of this article for discussion is a good idea, it may not be based upon policy, but it allows discussion wrt. the EU law, and whether wikipedia should follow a google notice, and the right to self censor. It is a good idea to set a precedent in this matter. As for self censor, there are times when it is good, e.g. the victims of crime, but I believe wikipedia already has this covered. Martin451 19:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been the subject of TV shows, which pretty clearly establishes notability. I would wonder if this attempt at deletion is done at the behest of Mr. Hutch's request, which would make it against Wikipedia's polices for editing your own article. Nodekeeper (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the assumption of bad faith? I have absolutely no links with the subject of the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. I'l be delighted to get involved in stoking up drama on behalf of Google once they start paying me. Formerip (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Agree completely with Joe Decker. No valid reason for deletion advanced by the nominator, Speedy Close under s.1. Tzvecl (talk 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link removal notice doesn't actually specify which search queries have had to have been 'forgotten'. Could be anything, really? It's probably a good idea to review the article for anything contrary to WP:BLP, but WP:AFD is hardly the best method - a cleanup tag or an WP:RFC might have been more useful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very first sentence "he is said to be....", a whole unsourced paragraph abut his alleged criminal past, full of unsourced statements, not massively notable in the first place. The Right to be Forgotten law is nonsense, but this article isn't much better and some people commenting above need to get off their moral pedestals. Furhtermore, most of the Keep !votes relate to the RTBF law (irrelevant at AfD) or are simply "he's notable". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just before Secret's contribution below, this discussion was closed. I reverted the close.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that everyone is talking about the right to be forgotten law, is that until your comment, no one has put forward a policy based reason to delete the article. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per subject request as a marginal WP:BLP, fails WP:BLP1E as he is only known for one event which is a bank robbery, everything else the article claims is non-notable (being a taxi driver for celebrties). Almost none of the keep votes are policy based and should be discounted by closer. Black Kite is absolutely correct here. Secret ^account 18:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication of any request made by the article subject. The request to Google was probably not made by the subject, since the article is still findable in Europe using his name as a search term. But, in any event, we don't know and no-one is likely to tell us. Formerip (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the people mentioned by name in this article, the only one who triggers Google's censorship warning is Felix McKenna. 2.103.236.122 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious, but that would be extraordinary, because it would mean that Google thinks it is within its rights to act on a RTBF request relating to a statement made by someone in their capacity as a senior public official. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of with Black Kite but not quite. We've got to have something here because of the incoming link from The Telegraph, but we should not be displaying this kind of BLP violation and it's particularly bad when the page is this prominent because of links from reliable news websites. A sysop should remove and revision-delete the defamatory content, and WP:TNT is the best way. Then we can put in a non-defamatory stub.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I'm not entirely sure what you could put in a stub. If you take everything unsourced out, you're left with practically zero notability anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, you could put up an image of the takedown notice from Commons. The takedown is itself notable. We need to remove the unsourced negative material about a living person, because, duh, but turning this into a redlink does not strike me the most brilliant move either, given the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Not a top of the range BLP by any means. Needs a cleanup and improved sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment The BLP violation claim is at least partially preposterous, since the criminal past and its details are sourced in the article to this reference. Other references can be easily found, e.g. [12]. If some sentences show problems with BLP, they can be trimmed, but still they are no reason to delete. In fact, what can be dealt by editing should be dealt by editing, not deletion, per our deletion policy (while WP:TNT is only a -debatable- essay). The "keep" votes are addressing the deletion rationale; as the deletion rationale is not policy based, they correctly point this (and the dangers of such a rationale).--cyclopia ^speak! 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we're allowed to use a source that says "Hutch planned his robberies with great care, and despite the fact the gardaí are convinced he pulled off two major robberies, he has never spent a day in jail for either." to say that he is a major armed robber? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same source you quote starts with "Ireland’s most successful armed robber Gerry ‘The Monk’ Hutch".--cyclopia ^speak! 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...yet provides no evidence to show that he actually is. It appears to have assumed that he actually did commit the two robberies mentioned above. Don't get me wrong, the man is clearly no saint, but we need better sourcing than that to write such a statement in Wikipedia's voice. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing has been added. Google Books has this guy covered, books by Penguin, entire chapters about him. -- GreenC 19:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, but I should add that I'm seeing a lot of Paul Williams (Irish journalist) in the sourcing I've found so far, and continue to look for a broader range of attribution. We're all trying to do the right thing, but let's actually look carefully at everything before jumping too fast, getting the right answer here is going to be important, both for the subject and for Wikipedia. I don't mind people taking a careful stand in either direction. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources available online. Just because there may be BLP violations doesn't mean that we need to delete it. However, I would have no objection to deletion followed by immediate recreation. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although he was previously notable for one event now he is notable for two and that is the whole "right to be forgotten" by Google. Now we are dealing with the publicity of this takedown notice which is ironic because the law is suppose to remove this mans existence from search engines but is essentially doing the opposite. I don't think this is an appropriate time to delete this article with all the attention arising from this new law. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no - someone applying for RTBF (regardless of whether they have a Wikipedia article) doesn't make them notable. It could be mentioned in an article about the issue, however. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, enough reliable sources discussing his particular right to be forgotten case will make him notable for it. If someone really wanted to get technical, they could argue that the article should be about his right to be forgotten case, with only a secondary mention of his criminal background, just as how we sometimes have an article about the crime, but not a separate one about the individual. Still, it looks like Gerry Hutch is notable for both, so that is probably not a good solution here. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without any doubt. There is no suggestion that any of the content is in error, and there are proper sources included. For a *world-wide* accessed page there should be no doubts about this. --AlisonW (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. procedural keep, nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. Also as above, the Streisand effect makes this page notable in itself, the page has received new coverage. Martin451 18:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The article is now almost as notable for being the first wikipedia page to be requested removed from Google's index, let alone the man himself, who is undoubtedly world-famous by now. Keep. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per joe decker. No valid reason cited for deletion. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Irish criminal with tons of reliable sources. Books, newspapers. -- GreenC 19:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do respect that someone wants to be "forgotten" and removed from Google etc. But you can not erase your past. He might feel shame of whatever but this is a solid case of notability through reliable sources. No way this should be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for being a major former Irish criminal. Also I though the EU ruling told Google to hide certain articles from its results, nothing gets deleted. Why is Wikipedia, a world wide but US based entity obeying EU law? Perhaps the clever peeps at Wikimedia Foundation can implement a check on readers IP, so those only outside the EU can read the article? ;-) Snappy (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Reso lute 19:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I can see no reason whatsoever under wikipedia guidelines to remove this. Nor under EU law, as has been mentioned the ridiculous "right to be forgotten" only applies to search engines. Fork me (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue is that if we remove this article based on the rationale for it stated by the nom. Then soon we will see more influential people requesting to be removed. How would we respond to Barack Obama wanting to be "forgotten" or whoever else. This is not even up for discussion in my opinion. If you are notable and there are a Wiki article about you, then it should stay on.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep google getting a notice is not us getting a notice. Its not BLP1e, its an entire career of crime, and one that has been covered by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Keep 94.5.4.135 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically the story that Hutch wants to be removed from Wikipedia could actually be something that should be added to his Wikipedia article. As it is quite notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not necessarily Hutch himself wanting to be removed, it could be anybody. This law only applies to search engines, as far as I am aware. I wonder how one sends such letter to Google anyways. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not SNOW close. The original nom rationale obviously should fail because it's not based on local policy, but there are potential BLP1E problems with this article that at a minimum merit discussion. Townlake (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep RTBF seems to only apply to Google itself, not to the original source of content. In other words, Google can't direct users here who are looking for this individual, but there's nothing preventing Wikipedia from having an article and directing users who use its internal search function from finding it. --McDoob AU93 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Google takedown? I searched for "gerry hutch" a minute ago, and got huge amounts of stuff about the "notorious criminal", including this article. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Talk:Gerry_Hutch#Removal_from_Google_Search. It now looks as though the blocking is related to the name of a retired Irish police officer mentioned in the article, and is nothing to do with Hutch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid rationale. According to the court ruling, the material may remain on the Internet, but must not be indexed by Google (making it harder to find). However, people wishing to find the material can still use an uncensored search engine (cf. Google China#Ending of self-censorship). Also, the court ruling has no effect on Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States. According to the EU court ruling, individuals may only request removal of information from Google if it is incorrect or outdated. For this reason, there may be BLP issues in the article, but this is a separate problem. If it is found that there are BLP problems in the article, the article could maybe be deleted for that reason instead. Also, could someone explain exactly why Google's European websites show this article? I just tried searching for "Gerry Hutch" on Google.se and this article came up as the first hit. Same on Google.dk, Google.de, Google.it, Google.nl, Google.co.uk and Google.ie. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to do with the name of someone OTHER than the article subject, can the article be re-worded to remove that name? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed User:GeoffBrigham (WMF) and told him about the likely cause being the retired Irish police officer. This could be a simple WP:BLPNAME issue which has been blown up out of all proportion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Felix' name doesn't really add value to this person's biography editorially, I've removed it. I won't war it, but I don't see his name as adding encyclopedic value here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question: Google doesn’t remove URLs completely from its results, it removes them from the results for certain search terms. Chirlu (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator- Time to apply WP:SNOW providing someone raises the BLP concerns elsewhere? Not suprised by the response here.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed obvious, based on WP's own policies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do your part and employ the procedure laid out at WP:WDAFD, please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not even close to a WP:BLP1E issue since conditions #1, #2, and #3 all fail (it only takes one to fail not to be BLP1E). I am One of Many (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until 'right to be forgotten' becomes WP policy, i.e. when hell freezes over and the project looses any remaining sense of purpose. RashersTierney (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:SNOW - Subject is a notable former Irish criminal who has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources. BLP violations is not a valid reason to delete the article. American-based website, Wikipedia, is not obliged to follow an European ruling of "right to be forgotten" for search engines. The Streisand effect from the ruling has caused the article to now gain even more notability. Also, if this article is removed based on the deletion rationale then this has the potential to open the floodgates for requests of other articles to be deleted as well. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tanbircdq, article is very well referenced. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please can the next person to view this page who has not already voted close the discussion. Please can the next person to see that the discussion has been closed recognise that it is a lost cause and leave it that way. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason stated for deletion by the nominator. I haven't ever played the censorship card before, but this seems like an attempt to do just that. See also Wikipedia:PEREN#Legal_issues. --Jakob (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its now clear that this article is not going to be deleted per WP:SNOW. Can someone close this discussion already. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - What absolute bollox, No valid reason for deletion at all, Just because Google's removing it doesn't mean we literally should. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination is not based on the Wikipedia rules. And if that crimer wants to remove any information about his crimes, Wikipedia must not make what the crimer wants to. The truth must to survive, and a censorship is inallowable! Gamliel Fishkin (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seriously, why are people still voting. Close! Close! Close! Formerip (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close Would some admin take the initiative and close this drama-fest. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: "right to be forgotten" is not a valid reason to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The idea that WP be censored on the basis of European legal whim is offensive. Go censor Europedia, f$#@ off out of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.172 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, Wikipedia is based in the U.S., so European law should have no effect here. Secondly, Streisand effect. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 03:35, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nominator's rationale is completely nonsensical and not based on any Wikipedia policy. Artichoker^[talk] 03:41, 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. Secret ^account 18:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wylie Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Wikipedia is not a directory of places or tourist guide book. This article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but contested as "the article has some merit". However the article remains an unimproved dictionary entry. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically not notable. Possible redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Few sources, and none that indicate its historical or geographical significance. One source that mentions how it got its name indicates that what's stated in the article is incorrect. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The available sources are acceptable. James500 (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain about the sources?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 15:45, 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. Secret ^account 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awale Olad[edit]

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

Biographical article lacks notability Activities referred to are commonplace and typical of all persons holding lower level political and administrative positions. Tmol42 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - Olad is a former Chairman of the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre. He is also the first Somali Councillor for Camden. Neither is commonplace or typical of all said persons. Middayexpress (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see how this individual is not notable. AcidSnow (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, Passes GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ward Councillor in London is not a sub-national legislature by conventional definition and thus the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre seems non-notable, small obscure organisation, 407 likes on facebook etc. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP Politician, just a local councillor. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete Local councillors are generally NN; being PR officer for a barely notable group similarly does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Olad wears many hats. Besides being a Councillor for Camden, where he is the Chair of the Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee [13], he is also the Public Affairs Officer for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration (APPG) [14]. The APPG is a grouping in the UK parliament that is composed of politicians from all political parties. Additionally, Olad is the Chair of the 8th Holborn Scout Group, established over 100 years ago [15]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:58, 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, for the reasons given above. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, on which a claim to meet the GNG could be founded. You only really seem to get this kind of routine local election coverage, which isn't directed at the subject of this article, doesn't discuss him in detail, and probably isn't sufficiently reliable either. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fort Devens. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry J. Malony United States Army Reserve Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was subject to closure under the last round of BRAC, and there is information on it, contrary to what you say. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are two sources that will back the above assertion up, as I could find more but want this discussion to maintain whether or not this is notable or not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a primary source, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability. The second does not provide any significant coverage of the Center. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': Plenty of sources to establish notability. [16][17][18][19] Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First source does not provide significant coverage, as does not address the topic in detail (the entire article, minus captions, is one sentence). The rest are primary sources, which does nothing to establish the Center's notability

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but looking at the sources I'm not convinced the centre's notable, So feel this does merit a discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable because it survived brac, which normally closes the base. Frmorrison (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving closure is not a test for notability --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The sources don't fill me with much confidence so relisting again, If an admin WOULD prefer to close please feel free to do so.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ordinarily I would think a verified US military installation would be easily established as notable, but in this case I share some of Davey2010's trepidation. I am unable to find any sources--whether primary or secondary--that clearly spell out just what and where this facility is. Why are there so few references that mention it? Is it at Fort Devens? (I couldn't find a mention at the Devens website.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than one source above I couldn't seem to find the center mentioned in any of them, Also Other than the article I've found absolutely nothing on Google neither, I'm somewhat lost as to why the above sources were posted if they don't mention the center anyway ? –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The various articles about BRAC, above, do mention this facility as having been targeted to be "realigned", whatever that meant, exactly. And the local paper photo does provide independent confirmation that this exists. My problem, as I said above, is that I couldn't find any basic info about this: a location, a function, etc. You'd ordinarily expect to find something official somewhere on .mil, and the absence of such official information puzzles me. In the meantime, however I have turned some additional articles from the Lowell Sun that mention this facility in connection with BRAC and the demise of the 94th Regional Readiness Command. [20][21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply because something is presumed to be notable does not make it so. This subject has very little primary sourcing and in order for inclusion it has to be notable and have proper sources to verify its notability. This per WP:GNG would alone fail. Therefore I feel we have no other choice but to delete.Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 6 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, Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fort Devens insufficient coverage for a stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in depth coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've listed this at WP:MIL. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fort Devens if that is where it is located. The information on this article should be included in the Fort Devens article if there are reliable sources to support the inclusion there. The article in question, by itself, is not notable; however it could contribute to the knowledge of Fort Devens in a minor way. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, or delete, not notable - Nabla (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect or merge into Fort Devens per User:Bejnar. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:21, 16 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. Secret ^account 18:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia (Lonely Planet)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. 舎利弗 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Moon and Lonely Planet title articles exist as (a) their dominance in the book market for information about Indonesia over the last 30 years (first Moon then Lonely Planet),(b) tourist guides are also used as standard references for information about the country, and if the Indonesian project had evolved sufficiently - and had a bibliography for the subject of Indonesia, the Lonely Planet title would be in the top 10 books that non Indonesian refer to for information about the country. (c) this reminds me of the nomionation of the Indonesian portal being put up fopr deletion. satusuro 15:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BKCRIT. Which of those five criteria does the book meet? Items (a) and (b) you cited do not seem to fit these criteria. (c) is just WP:OSE and does not count into the argument. 舎利弗 (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect no particular coverage. While Lonely Planet certain deserves its own article, individual guides do not, nor is there any particular claim to notability for any particular guidebook in the series. Fails WP:GNG for lack of in-depth coverage and fails WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto Bejnar. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:44, 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. POV fork Seddon ^talk 12:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of arguments for a young Earth[edit]

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

Classic WP:POVFORK. Content belongs either on Young earth creationism or on Age of the Earth. jps (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but rename to "List of arguments used by young Earth creationists" similar to a suggestion elsewhere). Young Earth creationism is a big article covering a lot of ground. It is perfectly appropriate to split off a section specifically for the geological and astronomical arguments and how they are rebutted. See Wikipedia:Splitting etc. Should have "main article" links from creation science and young earth creationism, but it arguably shouldn't even be mentioned at age of earth. On the negative side, we all know that, for obvious reasons, these kinds of articles take a lot of time and manpower to maintain in good condition. So there's something to be said for minimizing the number of articles on this topic, even if it means that some things aren't elaborated in as much detail as one might like. Therefore, if the article is deleted, I don't mind. --Steve (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nom says it's a WP:POVFORK. A blatant one violating WP:PSCI to the max. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Trim into Young Earth creationism... I assume that this spun out of that article... if so, it should be returned. In any case, the proper place to discuss what advocates of a theory say is in the article about that theory. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge. I don't quite get the "POV fork" argument, since all the arguments that are presented are also rebutted (if it promotes a POV in its current form, it's the mainstream one). Steve is correct that a sub-article on some aspect of YEC is legitimate if the main article grows too big, but the problem is that this is not about an aspect of YEC, it's a list of scientifically unrelated claims, jumbled up together. In any case, it should be labelled "list of would-be scientific arguments for..." or some such, since the actual main arguments used are predicated on the inerrancy of the bible, and involve the calculation of biblical chronology from the creation narrative. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pure creationist propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedic article. Everything listed in this list has severe logical fallacies that prevent them from being true arguments. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's not a reason to delete. The inaccuracy of the arguments is irrelevant, since the article points out that very fact. The article is about the existence of those arguments. The problem is the rag-bag nature of the content, and the fact that it would be better placed within a broader YEC article. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename per Steve and my earlier comments at WT:PHYSICS.T R 08:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Creationism - while some of these propositions may be notable on their own I cannot see how this list of arguments in favor of creationism is distinct from the subject of creationism. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if only because there's barely a topic here, and per WP:DIRECTORY. Our job isn't to duplicate TalkOrigins after all (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a very, very throughout list of arguments used by creationists). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and per Headbomb and others doesn't seem to be an actual topic. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into Young earth creationism, does not belong on age of the earth due to WP:ONEWAY, Second Quantization (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POVFORK. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic POV fork. Subject is not independent of and already existing article. Frankly, I don't see anything worth saving or merging. It's just a laundry list of notable and not notable arguments, and the notable ones are already mentioned in the other article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. Notable (there are many articles on this subject), NPOV, and well-referenced article. Ma^t_chups 02:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qendrim Hajdaraj[edit]

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

Has only played in semi-professional leagues, therefore fails WP:NBASKETBALL. He hasn't actually played for KD Hopsi Polzela, apparently (see the individual stats from the season 2009-10), which I consider the only claim of notability the article takes. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet NBASKETBALL or GNG so far as I can tell after searching. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not satisfy either the specific notability guideline of WP:NBASKETBALL (never played in the NBA or other top-tier league), or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG (insufficient coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing coverage that would push him above the bar under WP:GNG. Also does not satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL. Cbl62 (talk) 01:27, 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 05:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Blake[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had any significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Additionally there is a lack of in depth third party coverage [22] AlanS (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:V. He might belong on a Star Wars wiki, because he's had (very) small parts in a film, but he's not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - none of his roles are significant, and plenty aren't even credited (AKA he's an extra in many of them). AdventurousMe (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:39, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Purohit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The subject has acted in just one film and stood 7th in Dance India Dance. These are not enough to establish notability. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she seems to have done some other TV work, but seems no more notable now than she was when the page was last deleted in 2009. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HEY of previous AfD nomination. CutestPenguin (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She seems to have stopped acting after 2009. --Artene50 (talk) 03:40, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Herrera Spring 2014 Ready-to-Wear Collection[edit]

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

Non notable. No other fashion designer has an article just for their 2014 collection, what makes this one so notable that it merits one? Gbawden (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few fashion collections/presentations would be notable enough for a standalone article, and even then, the notability would only be apparent many years afterwards, like Dior's 1947 launch collection (which doesn't really need a standalone article anyway). Mabalu (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. According to WP:GNG, there are sufficient in-depth, reliable sources to pass, but this could also be considered a single event. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a single event. I really doubt anyone will even be thinking about it in a few months time. Mabalu (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Bearian the article cites sufficient independent reliable sources to satisfy notability. Wikipedia is not paper: there's no practical limit to how many articles it can contain, and just because we don't have articles on other 2014 collections is not an argument for this one to be deleted. (The non-existence of other articles may in fact indicate systemic bias resulting from our gender gap: that possibility argues for us to tread lightly here. Note that the Countering Systemic Bias wikiproject recommends that Wikipedians "[b]e careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations.") The article could probably be revised to make it more encyclopediac in tone, but I do not believe it should be deleted. Sue Gardner (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a fashion specialist actively trying to improve fashion coverage on here, I think this is a ridiculous subject for an individual article. Maybe part of an article on "Collections of Carolina Herrera" but seriously? There are tens of thousands of individual fashion collections out there from notable designers, so should we start flooding Wikipedia with these? For example, any moderately successful designer will put on at least four shows a year - spring/summer and autumn/winter, high end or couture, ready to wear, and some even do resort and pre-fall collections and others in between. We have Spring 2009 Chanel couture collection and while I think that one's a bit overkill, I can just about accept it - Chanel is so huge, and haute couture shows are major presentations. Similarly, Alexander McQueen's shows were pretty massive, major events that received significant individual coverage and are still critically discussed now - I wouldn't rush to make articles on them, but I think they're definitely legit subjects because they are still being discussed by fashion historians nowadays - like certain (but not all) of Elsa Schiaparelli's 1930s collections. Plus, this is Herrera's latest ready-to-wear collection - how is that not approaching promo and advertising for a single event? Now if we were talking about a show that was still being discussed and critically considered years afterwards, like McQueen's Highland Rape collection, or any of Dior's original 1947-57 collections, we'd be talking... Mabalu (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you Mabalu but that said, we have 719 articles on Pokemon characters. We have 693 articles about DC Comics super-villains. We have what, 5K-10K articles about railway stations that are now closed? All that is fine with me, and an article on Carolina Herrera's spring 2014 collection is fine with me too.

What you have here is a new editor, who's obviously motivated, a good writer, and has subject-matter expertise that's relatively rare in the projects, who wants to help improve Wikipedia. We know that number-of-editors is down because non-vandal newbies are quitting and that reversions and deletions have increased over the years; we know 17% of departed editors say they left because of being reverted/deleted, and that women specifically frequently cite it as a reason for quitting. Deleting this new contributor's first-ever article, which is not a BLP violation or in any way damaging to enWP, strikes me as short-sighted. Why not encourage her instead? Sue Gardner (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on this - I think you make a good point and I agree that the editor could be very useful for Wikipedia and has potential to be a good contributor. And as for the railway stations/comic characters - yes, other crap exists, but what has that to do with the discussion here? I think we need to focus more on laying down the basic foundations of fashion on Wikipedia, and I hope User:Lisacarolinamartinez will be a highly valuable part of this - I'm particularly excited that she wants to improve red carpet coverage as I'm the guy who started doing the Red Carpet fashion articles, so I hope she will stick around despite my personal views on this particular article's worthiness. It's definitely nothing personal against her and I do appreciate that she's good at what she does - it's just that this particular article seems a bit too single-event and niche, and unlikely to show lasting notability. Mabalu (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not know much (anything?) about fashion, but I agree with Sue Gardner here with the bias-issue, though maybe Collections of Carolina Herrera would be better. — fnielsen (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I want to thank all of you who have set aside the time to comment on this article. Clearly, this is somewhat new territory for me and Wikipedia. My goal as part of the Wikipedia Fashion Project is to help expand fashion coverage on the site. Daily, I search for and find most topics of interest covered on Wikipedia, with one notable exception--fashion. Fashion is a subject of encyclopedic interest (for one example, among many Oxford UP has an award-winning 10-volume set http://global.oup.com/academic/product/encyclopedia-of-world-dress-and-fashion-9780195377330;jsessionid=602461696283C102FC1D226946113752?cc=us&lang=en&) but we still have very little coverage of fashion here. While this article may be unusual, I believe that this is because the area needs improvement; the lack of material in this area is a missed opportunity to not only provide useful information but also to attract new readers and engage/retain new editors who are also interested in this subject matter.

I feel that this article meets the notability guidelines to not only be retained, but to stand alone. This was not solely an event; the collection as a whole body (body of work/fashion as art) represents a notable product of a notable and established company. There are plenty of reliable sources that talk about this product line. In the words of the general notability guideline, it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It garnered attention domestically and internationally. Fashion, like cars or other similar product lines, is referential and cyclical--to say someone may not be thinking about a collection in a few months' time seems a bit myopic--earlier collections provide a foundation and framework for subsequent works and over time build a larger body/retrospective of work. You can see for instance discussion of Herrera's evolution as a designer in coverage of this specific product line - [23]. My ultimate goal is to help build a fashion repository, an archive of fashion collections. More than half a billion monthly visitors rely on Wikipedia for information--but this is an area that is severely lacking and that I think we can improve. While I think the article should be retained and expanded upon as part of a growing body of coverage of the subject, if the article is to be deleted, perhaps, I can restructure and expound upon the subject, aggregating previous and subsequent collections into one article. I had to start somewhere and this seemed like a good foundation. If the article is not judged to meet standalone notability criteria, I would be happy to rename this article as "Carolina Herrera Collections" and expound upon it to make it more comprehensive. One thing I did note, Mabalu, is that the four designers (Chanel, Dior, Schiaparelli, and McQueen) you cited are all deceased (and the former two have haute couture collections)--hopefully, Wikipedians don't solely consider a designer's work noteworthy posthumously. I think it is important to differentiate between Couture, RTW, Pre-Fall, and Resort. Sadly, Couture is a dying art form and not accessible to the general population--yes it's seen on the red carpet (and should also be included in the project), but ready-to-wear has a larger audience and customer base and is more susceptible to imitations--yielding more coverage, discussions, interest, etc., thereby making it more noteworthy. Of all the categories, RTW, featuring the world's most preeminent designers, is also the most widely-covered and has a month of collections (New York, London, Milan, Paris) dedicated to it twice annually. I believe that there is room on Wikipedia and that it is well within our scope to cover it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisacarolinamartinez (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Lisacarolinamartinez - Just a note, and I'm surprised that you suggested that there's a bias towards deceased designers - while Chanel IS deceased, the current designer, Karl Lagerfeld is not deceased and he's the guy responsible for the collection I noted had an article on it. Similarly, there have been Galliano collections for Dior that would be notable, and Galliano's definitely not deceased either. So there's no anti-living bias going on here - in fact, Hussein Chalayan has had some very notable individual collections too. And Vivienne Westwood has had quite a few too. But enough time has passed to make it obvious that those collections went beyond the one-off events they essentially were, to have enduring impact and significance. In this case, I am not able to see how a Carolina Herrera collection, one of thousands like it held in the same season, deserves its own individual article - although personally I would have no problem with an article such as Collections of Carolina Herrera that encapsulated each season's trends and basic styles in a concise, clear way. Not one I would personally be interested in doing, but if someone else is - please do! Mabalu (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Mabalu - I don't think we're that far apart. We seem to share a genuine interest in and an extensive knowledge of fashion. I mean no disrespect at all to Karl Lagerfeld or current Dior Creative Director, Raf Simons; however, they are creative directors--no matter who is at the helm or how indelible their mark, the eponymous house remains the same--I was merely noting that the houses you mentioned were named for founders who are no longer living. The living designers you've mentioned are all quite unique--avant-garde (Chalayan), eccentric (Westwood), and a controversial genius (Galliano)... I am also a longtime fan of Hussein Chalayan! I still remember the table dress he designed more than a decade ago; he inspired my love of convertible dressing. I see where another contributor did what we've discussed earlier within the Chalayan article [24], expounding upon individual collections within his biographical article. As we also share the objective to improve the fashion coverage on Wikipedia, I hope that we have the opportunity to collaborate at some point (beyond this discussion)—-imagine the encyclopedic fashion repository we could help build! One thing's for certain you've given me ideas for more articles and edits. Lisacarolinamartinez Lisacarolinamartinez (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but it seems to me that starting with individual collections within the biographical article and then spinning that out into a list of collections when they outgrow that, and building out from that list to individual articles on collections would be a good way to start. It's also going to be easier for people to find on search. You're talking about a massive project here (even for one designer, you're looking at 10-12 articles per year), and if you lost interest in Wikipedia, individual standalone articles could become stranded, whereas if the framework is already there, it would be much easier for other editors to build on. Impressed by your passion. So, User:Lisacarolinamartinez would you be open to either merging it into Carolina Herrera or starting a new article called Collections of Carolina Herrera? And I do think, with others, that Highland Rape clearly deserves its own entry, so it might be worth starting with standalone truly notable, landmark collections, and then working back... AdventurousMe (talk) 04:50, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Howard[edit]

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

Non notable, 1 independent film doesn't make her a notable actress and one book doesn't make her a notable author Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note that the page was set up by User:Monicaannhoward, who appears to have a close connection to the subject. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not show notability under any General Notability, Author, or Entertainer - Seen a Mike (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG and probably WP:COI. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:35, 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. NPOL does not automatically make city councillors notable, not even from a big city like Manchester. In the absence of reliable sources going beyond a passing mention, notability has not been established. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ashley[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. It was never anything more than a stub, and the subject isn't even a member of the council anymore since he lost his seat in 2011. Totally fails notability. 88.104.6.198 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he isn't in office anymore is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of current officeholders — so once a politician has been properly established as passing WP:NPOL, they are notable not only for the duration of their term in office, but forever. And as a councillor in Manchester, one of the largest and most internationally famous cities in England, he does qualify for a presumption of notability under NPOL — he wouldn't get to keep the article if the sourcing can never actually get any better than this, granted, but he's entitled to a chance for the sourcing to improve. So the article should be flagged for {{refimprove}}, and should certainly be reconsidered for deletion in due time if no refimprovement actually results from that — but for the moment the deletion rationale is invalid and the article should therefore be kept. And a propos of nothing, if this is a third nomination then where are the first two? Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One trivial ref. Local councillor of no note. Google returns news articles on his work etc. But it is of the kind that fails WP Politician because its just local stuff. Nothing to indicate he passes GNG either. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being a councillor in Manchester does not make a person as notable as Manchester itself. Local councillors are rarely notable enough to have article pages of their own and should either be included in list articles as a group or articles about their local area. As he is no longer a councillor, it wouldn't be appropriate to include him in either anymore and it is extremely doubtful that he is likely to acquire a higher level of notability than he already has. This article has been nothing more than a stub for almost 10 years now. A notability tag was placed on the article over two months ago but has not led to any improvement. The article has survived two previous attempts at deletion purely because not enough people were interested in discussing it, which says it all really. Aristiano (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable former local councillor. Tiller54 (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. XiuBouLin (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. The leader of Manchester City Council might manage to be notable, but not the leader of an opposition party. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -This is the 3rd nomination and i would think its time to lay it down. delete away! Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the third nomination — I don't know why "(3rd nomination)" is in the title of this page, because there hasn't been a "first" or "second" nomination at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians (City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London.) The topic does meet WP:NPOL.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:09, 6 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a first nomination mentioned on the talk page, from 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 14:45, 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 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NANUKU SANGAM[edit]

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

Primary schools are not inherently notable. Reliable sources are needed to establish notability per WP:Notability (companies). Vanjagenije (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 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, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability per WP:NSCHOOL.--Rpclod (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an opinionated essay. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 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 06:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Kendall Melton[edit]

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

Nothing in this article indicates notability. Most of the links given link to symposiums she has spoken at. Don't think she meets WP:ACADEMICS Gbawden (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth there is also a potential COI - the user who created the page is RKMelton Gbawden (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible claim of notability and no WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 20:49, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Freeze[edit]

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

Someone has coined a phrase in the press - sounds very much like an opinion piece. Even the article states not everyone agrees it exists. Non Notable Gbawden (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Existence ≠ Notability. Not everyone agrees Bigfoot exists. All that matters is that the "Seattle freeze" has been the main subject of multiple non-trivial articles in reliable sources, and that meets the WP:GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost speedy keep. Were sources added after the article was listed? Because with what's there now, it seems clearly to have been judged notable by several external sources. (Not that I would necessarily agree, but...) Abeg92contribs 21:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Concept is notable, well-cited, documented. Frankly, the suggestion that it should be deleted is spurious. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC
Keep, clearly. Plenty of sources, even some Gbooks hits, show the concept is well established and known. Meets GNG. BethNaught (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course "someone" coined the phrase but it's being used by multiple reputable sources and is backed by real research, as discussed on article talk page. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:35, 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. As there is no valid merge target at the moment (perhaps eventually the redlink from Anarchangel below), consensus favors deletion. If editors would like a copy of this article to store in their userspace or in the article incubator for use upon the creation of the aforementioned article, please let me know. Thank you, and God bless! Go Phightins! 15:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime selected for the Cannes Film Festival[edit]

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

A trivia list of anime films that aired at a film festival. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it should be deleted. I actually really wanted to know the names of the anime films that were screened at the Cannes after I heard the news for Princess Kaguya. There were no definitive list in the net. I guessed other people might want to know as well. And hence created the article. User:Hyperactve (Talk · Contribs) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (BD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question is not why list films selected for Cannes, but why a separate list for anime? What treatment in secondary sources justifies this, or any other list of such films by genre or form? Why not a broader list for all animated films, or why not only list all films by festival year? postdlf (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three titles in the last 12 years doesn't seem like much of a list. If they were winners of an award at Cannes, there might be more of a case, as it stands it's just unnecessary trivia. Worth noting on the article pages? Yes. As a 3 item list? Not so much. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge the info into the selected anime articles if it has not been done already. As Sephy said, none of these were winners, useless triva. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial reason for a list and could begin an endless set of lists of "x genre shown at y festival". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cannes is the most prestigious festival in the world! It has been easier to win at the Academy Awards than at Cannes, as evidenced by Miyazaki's three nominations and one win. This list could survive and be useful if all entries are included like Yami wo Mitsumeru Hane, INTERSTELLA 5555, etc. or the debut of smaller works at Cannes. Overall, the list is too small to be of note and a category suffices for now. And anyone calling it useless trivia should be ashamed - Oscar nominations are not "useless trivia" and Cannes has proved more difficult to get an award than any other. Long ago, I had to check with Cannes about Castle of Cagliostro and it was over a decade that its mythical win was assumed as fact. Innocence was one of the twenty films competing for the highest honor, the Palme d'Or. The list is incomplete as is - and something that the nominator, and commentators are unaware of what's even been at Cannes. A case of the blind leading the blind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent I understand your comment, it doesn't explain why we should have a separate list for anime selected for Cannes. We are not discussing whether there should be any lists for Cannes selections or award winners. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is incomplete, thats one thing. It's also a good reason to work on a more developed article in user space while researching it and looking for more information. However I'm not sure the difficulty of getting an award or the prestigious-ness is particularly relevant for a list of films simply shown at a festival, especially when films can be shown without being entered for an award. The issue isn't Cannes, it's about the need for an anime only list of films that were at Cannes (which is where the trivia part comes in, not the actual inclusion at the festival). More entries and better sourcing may have a stronger case, but we can only judge the article on those merits once we have evidence. Innocence competing for the Palme d'or is important information for the film's article and the festival itself. It's not enough justification to have a list though. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of films selected for the Cannes Film Festival. Yeh. Does not exist yet. Creating it would address postdlf's argument. Many of the arguments to delete above rely on the Camel's Nose / Slippery Slope logical fallacy, which holds that any policy move in any direction is unstoppable. This argument relies on fear and ignores good sense and the power of consensus; it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that selection at Cannes is notable while selection elsewhere is not. Sound and reasonable arguments are all that is required to make good policy. Lastly, and least as it is admittedly an OTHERSTUFF argument, the article should exist if List of Cannes Film Festival jury presidents is anything to go by. Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think each year's selections are already listed as part of the individual festival articles, such as 2014 Cannes Film Festival. postdlf (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. The scope is just too narrow, it is a pointless fork (although not intended to mislead). Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 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 delete. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoode modaberi[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP. No evidence of notability. The Banner talk 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend a A7 speedy delete NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Doctor Mahmoud Modaberi martyr Bahonar kerman University professor and has published numerous articles and the book, therefore, is a prominent academic. Thanks Iranmanesh53 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please give sourced evidence of that? The Banner talk 12:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF in that, while he is a university professor, he does not appear to be a particularly notable professor. Surely, if kept, the machine translation needs major cleanup. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourced evidence of notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG or any of the specific guidelines such as WP:PROF. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. -- 101.117.58.208 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was written in apparent Object–subject–verb English. I've done what I could to tidy it up. but it still needs work.--Auric talk 22:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G5. User's contributions suggest pretty blatant socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamran1370/Archive. Hairhorn (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~.The owner of the well-known academic article and the owner of several articles and books. Many thanks Iranmanesh53 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote more than once. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:48, 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 06:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athiya Shetty[edit]

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

Clearly Fails WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. Contributer, is there any hurry? let her finish first. CutestPenguin (Talk) 19:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet NACTOR or GNG. Crystalballing, if her film gains her notoriety then no objection to reinstatement. Cowlibob (talk) 23:06, 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 06:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Traore[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure what would constitute an "NBA Africa coach", but in this case, it apparently means being a coach in a regional players' development camp co-organized by the NBA. Apart from that, there's only a college career as a rarely used substitute. I can't see how this could be enough to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or the WP:GNG. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet NBASKETBALL or NCOLLATH. I Can't find significant sources to meet GNG either. Rikster2 (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS, WP:GNG, and WP:NCOLLATH. Jakejr (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NBASKETBALL as he never played at pro level. Does not pass WP:NCOLLATH as he was a reserve player for a second (or third?) tier Manhattan Jaspers basketball team and did not receive significant, non-trivial coverage as a player. Also just not finding the coverage to pass WP:GNG -- the only items that might even count in such an analysis are this (press release from the NBA that mentions him in passing) and this (story about an African high school player discovered by Traore in Burkina Faso). I am assuming that this is a different Franck Traore. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 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 06:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Cecil[edit]

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

Unremarkable college career, and has only played in some minor semi-professional leagues since then. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NBASKETBALL that states "or a similar major professional sports league". The Siguria Superleague (he played there between October and December 2013) is a professional basketball league so he is a professional basketball player. Also does meet WP:GNG as a general search for him in google will find many reliable links for him – primary and secondary sources. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it doesn't say any professional league, but one similar to the ones mentioned there. The Siguria Superleague certainly isn't anywhere near that level. Second, what leads you to this conclusion, apart from our article claiming so? Concerning the GNG, I only find the usual trivialities, no detailed coverage on the person. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you disprove that it's not a professional league? Basketball appears to be a popular sport in Kosovo, and according to the main Kosovo basketball website, there appears to be junior/lower leagues then the number one Superleague i.e. junior league [25] [26], cadet league, first league. I'd definitely say it's a professional league; not on the same level as other European leagues, yes, but professional none-the-less. Regarding coverage, I provided many reliable sources on Justin Cecil – there are plenty of worse, non-notable and non-deserving Wikipedia articles out there. I personally think I did a fine job with this article (well sourced, well set-out/formatted) – I am well aware of what's a notable basketball article and what's not, and Cecil is surely notable enough... DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments (WP:OTHERSTUFF etc.) are of the kind that lead us nowhere. I don't know what level of professionalism you think exists in one of the poorest areas in Europe, but I couldn't find anything on attendance rates or the clubs' yearly budgets, and the teams don't take part in any international competitions. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, concerning your comment that you're "well aware of what's a notable basketball article": You're correct in noting that articles on players such as James Legan and Corey Easley (who began his career in the 3rd German division) haven't been nominated for deletion yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're in concordance with the notability guidelines. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable basketball player who has played at junior college, small college, minor league pro and semi-pro levels, none of which satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NBASKETBALL. Kosovo pro league? Seriously? Not on par even with the secondary European leagues. Media does not rise to the level of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS. Jakejr (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find reliable, independent sources on him to meet GNG. And when I think of the "comparable leagues" line in NBASKETBALL, I think of the top leagues in Greece, Turkey, Russia, etc, not Kosovo. These are really the type of leagues the guideline was meant to cover. Rikster2 (talk) 10:44, 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 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Choice Awards[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable award, and an award given by a non-notable organization.

The metronews (a free newspaper distributed to commuters) reference for the award to Dana White - Local business award taps UFC president indicates that is a local business award.

There are two references from the Toronto Sun. In the second, the two-time recipient very much downplays the importance of the awards. The second reference also discloses that "Top Choice Awards polled over 6,000 people in the GTA to choose their favourites in various categories based on quality, service, value and professionalism. The winners include 450 businesses and professionals.". This would indicate that the awards are voted on by a very small number of people with a very large number of winners, suggesting very little in the way of a selection process.

As for the "notable winners", any organization or individual decide to give an award to someone they admire. I doubt that Oprah Winfrey or Arnold Schwarzenegger were aware of their nominations, let alone their award wins.

Considering the other references:

"Steve Anthony Top Toronto Television Personality Top Choice Awards 2013" is his own website, and does not aid an assertion of notability
"Scott Fox Wins The 2012 Top Choice Award" is Z103.5's Scott and Kats' own website, and does not aid an assertion of notability
"Ivanka Trump - Top Choice Award 2012 - Businesswoman of the Year" is a video from the award's own YouTube channel. Again, it is no assistance in establishing the award's notability. Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelfillier (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)michaelfillier[reply]

(Forgive me if this is not the proper way to reply, I just wanted to respond quickly to prevent action from happening without hearing a response)

The metronews article refers to "Top Choice", an often used abbreviation when referring to the award. Dana White was even featured on the cover of Top Choice Magazine with the award. Top Choice Magazine - Spring 2011

The reference to the voting numbers is a little misleading in that instance. The 6,000 votes was JUST in the city of Toronto, the 450 winners were from all over Canada. The actual number of winners in Toronto was around 80. In our latest survey, we received over 500,000 votes and identified just over 900 winners, this is a big leap in terms of votes to winner ratio. Average votes per category this year was around 550, which is quite significant considering these awards are local.

Regarding the "notable winners" you assume have no knowledge of the award, here are temporary copies of their acceptance letters that will be added as references when I have upload privileges Arnold Schwarzenegger Acceptance Letter Oprah Acceptance Letter

The "Ivanka Trump - Top Choice Award 2012 - Businesswoman of the Year" video IS on our youtube channel, BUT she did record that acceptance speech for us to air during the awards gala for that year. Her acknowledgement in that video should aid assertion of notability, since it was not "created" by us.

Although "Scott Fox Wins The 2012 Top Choice Award" and "Steve Anthony Top Toronto Television Personality Top Choice Awards 2013" do fall under own website. I believe the fact that they are members of the media should aid assertion of notability, even if they are sharing the news themselves.

Delete - There really is only one potentially valid reference - two articles to the same event, a Mike Strobel winning the award. The other references are two YouTube videos (that are not authoritative) and to personal web pages for alleged award winners.--Rpclod (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No consideration for the acceptance letters from Oprah and Arnold Schwarzenegger? How can the youtube videos not be authoritative? Although they have been posted online by Top Choice Awards, they clearly depict an acceptance by Ivanka Trump and a television appearance on Breakfast Television in Toronto. These events did happen and were produced by external sources.

What about instances where the content is originally posted by a third-party and then removed at a later date? Here is an example of the award being presented on a popular Toronto Radio Show, the Dean Blundell Show, which has since been cancelled due to on-air comments^[1]. After the initial broadcast, the Dean Blundell Show posted the audio clip on it's Soundcloud account, which has since been deleted. Top Choice Awards received a copy of the interview and posted it on its own Soundcloud account: The Dean Blundell Show - Top Radio Morning Show Of 2013 In The GTA. Michaelfillier (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest?--Rpclod (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> Yes. I work for Top Choice Awards, but my contribution is not paid or advocated for by the organization. I do believe the organization is worthy of notice and although it may not my as famous or popular as other awards that are on wikipedia, it is definitely important. Michaelfillier (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This simply lacks the significant coverage from independent sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG. Routine coverage, passing references and coverage by related parties are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. None of the sources indicates notability.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:00, 2 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment The sources provided do indicate notability. The notability guideline mentions that sources should be "Independent of the subject". The videos and articles supplied were not produced by Top Choice Awards or anyone affiliated with Top Choice Awards. Top Choice Awards has hundreds of videos on their YouTube Channel that are produced by Top Choice Awards themselves. None of these works were cited. Michaelfillier (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AFDFORMAT: "do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line." You have already provided input above, please refrain from recommending action multiple times.--Rpclod (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Michaelfillier, it is fine per practice here for you to comment again, just don't vote "Keep" twice, that somewhat confuses interpretation of views here. It's impossible to know all the Wikipedia rules and practices right away. You're doing fine, keep up your good work. --do ncr am 03:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems confusing that the article does not describe this as a Canadian awards system, maybe it is supposed to be international though it is based in Vaughan, Ontario. There are numerous mentions. This award seems to range from very high to very local categories, so there are lots and lots and lots of mentions in various media, e.g.:

In an country of INDIA newspaper: "Home Care Assistance Toronto/York Region Wins Top Choice Award for Elderly Care Services in Vaughan", Source:India Pharma News. (May 5, 2014) Excerpts describing the awards: "Located in the city of Vaughan, Ontario, the Top Choice Awards is an organization that uses international surveys to assess the service of businesses around the world and recognize them in categorical awards. The qualification process for the Top Choice Awards is rigorous and the winners are chosen by customer vote. 'We can't begin to explain how proud and excited we are to be given this award,' says Lester Fix, executive vice president of Home Care Assistance - Toronto/York Region. 'We've dedicated ourselves to providing elder care services to the communities in which we're present and are honoured to be recognized for our hard work.' The next Top Choice Awards Gala will be held on November 7 at The Fermenting Cellar in the Distillery District of Toronto. This will mark the ninth year of this prestigious award.".
"Restaurant is 'top choice'", Mississauga News (Mississauga, Ontario). (Dec. 2, 2011): News: p1, by: Julia Le. Excerpt: "A Mississauga restaurant has been recognized for beings tops in Italian food. During a gala at Toronto's Atlantis Pavillions earlier this month, Il Porcellino Italian Restaurant received the Top Choice Award (TCA), handed out by the organization of the same name. Il Porcellino Italian Restaurant won in the Italian restaurant category, based on online voting on the TCA website."
"Slimband Captures Coveted Top Choice Award." India Pharma News 14 Nov. 2013. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 7 Aug. 2014. Excerpt: "New Delhi, Nov. 14 -- Slimband is the top weight loss clinic in the Greater Toronto Area. That's according to local residents who handed the company the honour-known as the Top Choice Award-in a live vote that was held through the web and on social media." Goes on for a bit.
and lots more

Frankly i don't get why a New Delhi, India-based news organization focusing on the pharmaceuticals industry is one of the news organizations covering these, but coverage is coverage is coverage. Also it is confusing that there is a Colorado Cattleman's association and various other organizations that also give "Top Choice Award"s, but the Canada one seems to be the most prominent use of the term. --do ncr am 03:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is "India Pharma News" a reliable source? I don't think so. "Coverage" needs to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Why is it covering this award? Looking at its website I would say that will it may arrange to cover anything. Google the phone number on its website for more info in this regard.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read all of the refs, none of them confer notability. They are all youtube or primary or reporting the awards. Nothing to indicate the awards themselves are notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:26, 16 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} 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cauliflower Alley Club[edit]

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

This page fails the general notability guideline. Cauliflower Alley Club has not received significant enough coverage from reliable, secondary sources. An attempt to locate sources shows that the Club has not receive coverage wide enough for it to have an article. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:02, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received enough coverage to cover WP:GNG concerns. Sources from Canadian Online Explorer, LA Times, The Argus-Press, PWtorch exist. It seems to have been covered in several books, including Babyface Goes to Hollywood - Fighters, Mobsters & Film Stars and The Jimmy McLarnin Story and Historical Dictionary of Wrestling by John Grasso.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples: ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]

^ Jesse McLean; David Bruser (6 Jan 2014). "Dean Blundell Show cancelled after suspension over on-air homophobic commentary". Retrieved 30 July 2014.
^ "Cauliflower Alley Club Lends an Ear to Boxers, Wrestlers". Los Angeles Times.
^ "Cauliflower Alley Club: 'Gentle and Warm People'". The Argus-Press.
^ Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. p. 65.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, the search results given by the nominator establish notability, as they are reliable, secondary sources and give depth of coverage. In addition to the ones mentioned above, there is a notice on the Fight Network website (certainly a major, reliable, secondary source) about a CAC reunion. If the CAC weren't a major organization, the Fight Network certainly wouldn't be discussing their reunion dinner. Furthermore, just look at the picture of some of the members. These are major names in professional wrestling. Clearly, this is a notable organization. On top of that, the five books in the Further Reading section of the article help demonstrate extra notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 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 06:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folknography[edit]

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

No evidence for the use of this term by anyone other than its inventor. Article was dePRODded by original editor, who added third ref (Kobsa), but this paper does not mention Folknography. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. PamD 07:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Book cited is a custom publication. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely original research. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - one person's ill-conceived conation. Scholar cites show that it has minimal traction in the academic world. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:42, 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 because the nominator withdrew the nomination. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone[edit]

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

I ~~don't think this is notable NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)~~ I withdraw this nomination. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article topic is the subject of numerous academic studies, of publications, of whole sections in field guides and manuals, and is often referred to in articles on individual species. The article was tagged for deletion because it originally lacked sources to establish notability. This is now fixed. FloraWilde (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been very considerable botanical study of this area. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3120/0024-9637-58.3.153 is a recent paper with a good bibliography. For example, see [27][28] The nomination is crass but perhaps the wrong button was pressed in Twinkle. A list is at List_of_plants_of_the_Sierra_Nevada_(U.S.)#Alpine_Zone but there is plenty of scope for a full article. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: How about we merge the section (List_of_plants_of_the_Sierra_Nevada_(U.S.)#Alpine_Zone) into the Flora of the Sierra Nevada alpine zone NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the vast amount of literature. FWIW, similar region-flora articles have been kept at AfD in the past. -- 101.117.56.77 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the mere fact that there are numerous academic studies devoted to this community is evidence that it is notable. Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and is referenced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehnarchy[edit]

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

per WP:GNG also COI problem (creator seems directly involved with subject). NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Obviously made up today by the author. It may assert enough importance to avoid an A11 speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete 100% Original Research.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:52, 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 delete - insufficient context. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEWA BHAYA[edit]

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

Unclear purpose of page smileguy91^talk 05:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced, perhaps a speedy deletion candidate for lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:18, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fuentes[edit]

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

Filing this along on procedurally, see the requests at Talk:Lupe_Fuentes#Courtesy_deletion and User_talk:Lupe_Fuentes_official. In short, contributor claiming to be the subject requests deletion. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known, notable individual. --Auric talk 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's notable enough for our inclusion standards. Considering that she's making music now (or seems to have been in the last year) then she is still trying to be notable for something, i.e. not dropping from the lime light. I guess I'm not really clear on what her objection is. All the information is sourced. Is she looking to re-write history? Dismas|^(talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. See this and this edit by her boyfriend. Nymf (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was additional, negative, and badly sourced material somewhat tangentially related to the subject in the article at the time of the request which was the likely reason for the request. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that was the reason. If you look at the edit summary of this edit by her boyfriend, he's implying that she has never been a pornstar. Nymf (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! I had forgotten about those edits. Thank you, both. My opinion is still Keep. Dismas|^(talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the first time he's attempted to own this article. [29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above - Notable DJ . –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an article about a notable person and should be kept. As noted by Joe Decker at the BLP notice board, there are BLP issues that should be addressed immediately and repaired by a more knowledgable editor than myself. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baby. Bathwater. Subject should be more specific about the negative material in her article and we should consider whether it is appropriate to remove it under our BLP policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough when she was in porn and not notable as a musician. Let her move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.179.112 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — 86.10.179.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Otteson[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim of notability is as a campaign manager for a couple of politicians (mostly unsuccessful), without enough substance to demonstrate that he was in any significant way a notable campaign manager. This isn't a role that gets a person past WP:NPOL, so it's WP:GNG or bust — and per the quality of sourcing that's been provided here, it's bust. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any coverage of this person in reliable sources. The reference in the article is to an unlinked 30 year old piece in the New York.Times. I am a NYT subscriber, and my archive search came up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The discription in the article doesn't make him noteworthy. Also I searched for him on Highbeam, found 2 articles on Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) from 2005 where a Karl Otteson is briefly named as the district's attorney, but nothing else. Only 500 hits on google. I noticed this page Karl Ottesen, which was deleted 3 days ago. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears that the same editor created both spellings more or less simultaneously (and they both claim to be the same person), and then that version got speedied but this one hung around. Weird. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a campaign manager for a successful U.S. Senate campaign in a contentious race, there is a claim of notability, but the paucity of sources is the problem. The correct spelling appears to be "Karl Ottesen", but there are no meaningful articles about him in such publications as The New York Times where the races listed were covered thoroughly but he is mentioned only in passing. Other searches using that spelling also don't turn up anything. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 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 06:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U-blox[edit]

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

No claim of notability, no sources besides their own website. A Google search turned up nothing useful. I feel this fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for corporations. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article was created in 2008 by user:Aliciamontoya u-blox, who no longer edits, and never edited any other article. Article was edited throughout 2008 by user:Cheerdown, who no longer edits, never edited any other article, and used an edit summary describing u-blox as 'our company', and one talking about 'our copyrighted logo'. Since 2009 the article had been edited by user:Carlfenger (who has edited no other article since he started editing this one, and has used edit summaries attributing his edits to u-blox) and user:195.34.89.245 (which is owned by u-blox). The only other signifigant contribution to this article, ever, was a single edit by user:Cheeseland (the only edit, ever, by that user). Obvious long-term case of abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

The only coverage I could find on the internet was brief company profiles on investment sites and industry association sites (of which u-blox is a member), and press releases linked from those sites. None of this goes to notability. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Revent^talk 04:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company fails to meet corporate notability threshold due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Borderline promotional given the user name of the creator. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - non notable company –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:58, 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. Notwithstanding the possible socking, or at the very least SPA-ing going on here, editors who support keeping the article fail to adequately address the appropriate analysis of the sources provided by reddogsix, and thus fail to assert notability. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion, and for those new editors who may be disheartened by this discussion's result, I would encourage you to read the general notability guideline, and re-submit this article through articles for creation if and when the show garners appropriate coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Thanks again, and God bless! Go Phightins! 16:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Lens[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show. Article lacks non-trivial secondary references. Article fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The radio equivalent of a cable public access show. All references are to the show's own website. No indications of WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We have added external references since this comment. Desmond Andrewson 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of the reliable sources, this meets notability criteria of reliable external sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roo1237 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Roo1237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - So let's look at the references. They either lack independence or are very trivial. There are no in-depth articles. The article still suffers from a lack of secondary support. The issues in the nomination have not been addressed.

1 – Trivial listing from station the program is on, lacks independence

2 - ?

3 – Trivial mention written by program creators, lacks independence

4 – Trivial, part of a list, also lacks independence

5 - Trivial, part of a list

6 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

7 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

8 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

9 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

10 – Single line mention, far from non-trivial

11-35 – All these are descriptions of the interviews they have done, either from radio website or a newspaper listing, they are all trivial and/or lack independence. reddogsix (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability: I believe it is notable. With over 170 hour-long interviews, many of them transcribed, Sustainable Lens is making a significant contribution in discussion on sustainable perspectives. The hosts are a leading NZ Green campaigner and a senior NZ academic. They have interviewed many leading New Zealand politicians along with international leaders in sustainable practice.

Secondary references: I am looking up further external sources this week and shall add these as they come to hand. We seek your advice as to what would count. Is tricky when the only regional newspaper has a policy of not referencing what they see as the competition. 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond.andrewson (talk • contribs) — desmond.andrewson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - please indicate how this meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As reddogsix wrote, we first need to know how the notability guidelines are fulfilled here; if this is as important a radio program as you state it is, some external source somewhere should have written about it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No outside indication given of notability. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ We believe that by now adding reliable sources we have met the criteria for notability. This includes newspaper review and a peer reviewed academic publication. Desmond.andrewson (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV, no indication of coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’ "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."--"Sustainabile Lens" is a significant contributor to material and information in sustainability discussions. A quick google of "'Sustainable lens' radio", demonstrates a number of websites that reference Sustainable Lens as a source of information on sustainability issues. Many of the websites that refer to Sustainable Lens have now been cited. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional secondary sources do indeed reference Sustainable Lens, but an absence of related points in the Wikipedia article make it inappropriate to cite them. These other sources are both reliable and independent, thus fulfilling Wikipedia's notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simke671 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Simke671 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - So let's look at the references. They either lack independence or are very trivial. There are no in-depth articles. The article still suffers from a lack of secondary support. The issues in the nomination have not been addressed.

1 – Trivial listing from station the program is on, lacks independence

2 - ?

3 – Trivial mention written by program creators, lacks independence

4 – Trivial, part of a list, also lacks independence

5 - Trivial, part of a list

6 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

7 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

8 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

9 – Interview description, far from non-trivial

10 – Single line mention, far from non-trivial

11-35 – All these are descriptions of the interviews they have done, either from radio website or a newspaper listing, they are all trivial and/or lack independence. reddogsix (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks reddogsix. For the record, number 2 is a newspaper review. Also, although number 3 involved the programme creators, it is a quality assured publication hence hardly a "trivial mention".

We seem to at be an impasse here, the show is clearly notable in its context. It has a few in depth articles and a lot of lesser references. I know it is not the etiquette here to point to the very great number of articles with lesser evidence (and I know the response is that we are dealing with this one now), but this is a real show, attracts major guests (this week a Cabinet Minister) and has a following. The problem seems to be that being in media in a competitive market, it is hindered from generating the secondary sources it might otherwise deserve.

I note that the guidelines here are not absolute: "deciding...good editorial judgment and common sense", "Secondary...and to a lesser extent tertiary and primary" (the primary sources here are evidential without interpretation - the names and quotes of notable guests). On the basis of this common sense, it would be really helpful if you could suggest an alternative solution or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. Desmond.andrewson (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion while the show itsself does not meet the notability guidelines this article could be moved/merged into Otago Access Radio's article with a redirect from Sustainable Lens. This would eliminate the problem it now faces, retain the information, and improve the Access Radio article. NealeFamily (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is correct. Refs don't offer notability, its a plain old boring radio show. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Add. None of the keep votes are regular editors. Szzuk (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per USER:reddogsix - sources are trivial, self-published or both. Clearly fails WP:GNG. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question User:Desmond.andrewson do you have a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 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 withdrawn in favour of a redirect to the better sourced article Lovebot. Bearcat (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Invasion[edit]

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

As bizarre as this article is going to sound to the uninitiated, I actually do know what it's about, as I live in Toronto and have seen the "love robots" in question for myself. So trust me, it's not a "hoax" or "patent nonsense" as it might appear — I get it, even if you don't. But I'm not convinced of its notability — of the four sources here, we've got (1) the artist's own website (a primary source), (2) a link to the webstream of CIND-FM which fails to actually verify that the station actually broadcast any content about it (and wouldn't really confer notability even if it did, as it's not a national radio service), (3) a non-notable local design blog that fails the WP:BLOGS test, and (4) a blurb in The Grid. So we've got one properly reliable source here (#4, if you lost track), but even that one fails to constitute substantive coverage. And the article's claims that the "lovebot movement" has "thousands of fans around the world" and that "the impact and values of the Lovebot project are globally expanding every day" are completely unsourced and unverifiable. So as cute as I find the robots, I'm sorry to say that what we have here is an article that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in this form, and has to be deleted unless the sourcing can be majorly beefed up. Or redirected per Tokyogirl. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If sourcing can be found for Lovebot then this might be something that should be merged into that article. However I notice a pretty big lack of coverage in that article as well- and I'm also quite concerned that both pages appear to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX for the movement as a whole. I like the movement's idea, but using Wikipedia as a mouthpiece is very, very inappropriate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lovebot. The problem here is that the notability is almost solely for the robot mascot itself and while it does discuss the general idea of the Love Invasion, it's rarely called that exactly and it's far more likely that people will be searching for the term "Lovebot" itself. The art movement/project has received some fairly recent press as well as back in 2013, so I'd say that the Lovebot article could probably pass notability guidelines weakly, but there's no reason to have two separate articles. I've cleaned the article for Lovebot up quite a bit and removed all of the WP:PUFFERY and promotional prose, but I do want to caution against it being reverted to the promotional version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be acceptable too. Maybe even better, as things now stand — we don't need two separate articles about the same thing, obviously, but that one does cite much better sources than this one does. Thanks for the catch and the sourcing improvements — though ironically I've AWB-tagged both pages for maintenance issues in the past, AWB isn't a good tool for evaluating content. So the substance of both articles slipped by me at the time, and when I caught this yesterday I somehow missed the other one. In fact, given your salvage work I'm willing to just withdraw this and go straight to a redirect if there are no objections. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cool with that, if you wanted to withdraw this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 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. 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). [30] [31] [32] 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. [33] 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 redirect to Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out?#Sequel. Of note is that in a comment, User:Rpclod also stated (after their delete !vote), "Redirection and merge would be ok. So is userfication". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Ghostly: Have You Met My Ghoulfriend[edit]

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

Promotional article about a DVD. Fails WP:GNG notability. The only available sources are press releases and mirrored articles promoting the DVD. - Mr X 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability and has no reliable refernces. Staglit (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mostly_Ghostly:_Who_Let_the_Ghosts_Out?#Sequel with history. The film has yet to receive enough (or any) coverage to merit it having its own article at this point in time, but it would probably work as a redirect to the article for the first film. I say leave the history intact because it is entirely possible that the film will receive enough coverage later to merit it being un-redirected. If/when that happens, it'd be nice to have a ready article history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Temporary redirect to Mostly_Ghostly:_Who_Let_the_Ghosts_Out?#Sequel with history. Nominator is incorrect to assert information on this completed and unreleased film is only available in press releases as due diligence finds Empty Lighthouse Magazine, Broadway World, Hi-Def Digest, New York Times, and Daily Mail among others. Until determined ready, we can at least send readers to where it makes sense to have this completed film topic spoken. I was vacillating on a keep as (and I wish to point out to both User:MrX and User:Staglit) that even without their being used in the article (NOT a madate) it might be seen that, thorough coverage of film and production, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met already. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you linked to are ones I referred to as "mirrored articles promoting the DVD", specifically lighthouse.com, broadwayworld.com, and highdefdigest.com all of which promote the DVD near the end of each article. The NYT listing is not a article. Ironically, the DailyMail article is the most informative, although the publication itself is largely regarded as unreliable around here. I believe the subject fails WP:MOVIE#Reliable sources which states "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." Most of the available source articles come from this press release. That said, I have no objection to redirecting the title as proposed by Tokyogirl79. - Mr X 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About a DVD or a theatrical or television release is not the issue. An independent article in a reliable source which shares information on the topic being discussed, is not considered promotion under Wikipedia definitions. And I was purposely NOT speaking about simple reprints of press releases, as reliable sources are allowed to quote a press release in their greater coverage of a film topic. If a reliable source quotes a press release and then moves on to give examples and expand on the topic in context, it is also not promotion per our definitions. And by the way, by their having editorial staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, Daily Mail meets the criteria as a reliable source "around here"... unless somehow now demoted by the reliable sources noticeboard. That clarified, I am still supportive of a temporary redirect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upcoming? WP:TOOSOON--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be open to the idea of redirecting this with history as opposed to just outright deleting everything? I think that it'd be more reasonable to leave the history intact and just redirect it for now. If anyone un-redirects it before it's ready, we can always re-redirect it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection and merge would be ok. So is userfication.--Rpclod (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No refs, too soon, leave history for now. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of global South Asian LGBT and queer history[edit]

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

I know that we have a lot of timeline article, but this one looks really strange. It's full of totally un-notable information. I may be called an WP:Original research as many of the entrants are very loosely connected to the "LGBT and queer history". For example, this one: "Tara Singh and Jamil Singh both arrested for interracial sodomy in Sacramento, CA." What does it have to do with South Asia? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have things not in South Asia, and we have major attempts to force into the straight-jacket of LGBT things that might not relate to it at all. This is just too braod ranging to be workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Do you have particular examples of non-LGBT content on the LGBT timeline? Off-topic content should obviously be removed. -Anirvan (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and concerns noted and addressed — (1) The page stated that it's covering South Asian and South Asian diasporic LGBTQ history, but that wasn't made clear enough, so I went ahead and renamed the article to put the word "diaspora" directly in the title. (2) The page is very new, and has been worked on primarily by two editors, so I marked it as an LGBT stub to pull in more expert editors who can help assess notability and improve article quality. - Anirvan (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Vanjagenije (talk) asks about the significance of the arrest of Jamil and Tara Singh. This is actually an incredibly important event -- the earliest record of South Asian MSM in North America, an event also noted in the timeline in the Indian American article. I reworded the item to clearly state the significance ("Earliest known records of South Asian MSM in North America"). This article needs helpful editorial help like this, rather than an AfD process. Anirvan (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is so "incredibly important event" that no news agencies reported on it. [34][35]. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The event happened 96 years ago — that's why Google News doesn't cover it! Please see the citation #8 that's included in the article right next to the sentence you're talking about: Shah, Nayan (2011). "Policing Strangers and Borderlands". Stranger Intimacy: Contesting Race, Sexuality, and the Law in the North American West. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 74–78. ISBN 978-0-520-27087-9. -Anirvan (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks like you were misspelling the search terms. You can see the events mentioned in 3 books if you search in Google Books -Anirvan (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced list of notable events. Now that the title/definition has been made clearer so as to cover both South Asian and diaspora communities, I see no policy-based argument for deletion of the entire list. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge as Timeline of South Asian LGBT history. The WP convention is LGBT, not LGBTQ. The article should be limited to South Asia, and exclude overseas communities. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, my understanding is that contemporary South Asian LGBTQ history is very much a tight interplay between events and movements in South Asian and in diaspora, and separating the two out may actually obscure more than it reveals. For example, the article on LGBT culture in Chennai describes how members of the first lesbian group in the city of Chennai, India found each other through the classified section of Trikone, a diaspora magazine published in San Francisco. If you think making the distinction between South Asia and diaspora is critical, what would you think of adding flag icons to make locations more clear? Anirvan (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, re: "LGBT" vs "LGBTQ," I went ahead and renamed the article Timeline of South Asian and diasporic LGBT history to match Wikipedia convention. Thank you for the suggestion. -Anirvan (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This chronology of events is an important reference for those of us contributing to country- and city- specific LGBT timelines of events that are both impacted by and influence events in the diaspora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lramakrishnan (talk • contribs)
Keep and clean up. I don't see that it's so bad as to require WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Sorry about the finger slip there.) Specific arguments for notability went unrebutted. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Yadel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage here is mainly trivial, and not the indepth coverage required to establish notability. This article was previously considered for deletion, in a discussion that ended in no consensus, but was largely driven by people who held the view that 'all detainees at Guantanomo Bay were notable for that fact alone. That view has been shown to clearly have been rejected in later developments of consensus, so it seems to me it is high time to reopen this discussion and delete this article, as should have been done 7 years ago when first discussed. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a second nomination before. I think I messed this one up. If someone could fix it so the links work, that would be helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the previous AfD discussion under this sentence. Lets see if this works. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's easier than fixing the AfD. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not suggesting that all detainees are notable, Brahim Yadel has been the subject of significant coverage, much of which is in French for the obvious reason. See, e.g., Interview de Brahim Yadel - ex-détenu à Guantanamo and, even in English, [36]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination presents the activity in the previous AfD quite backwards. An editor to Keep put forth the proposition that he was notable because he was believed to have organized training camps in France, and the Delete voters utterly and completely failed to even address that point. Sharp-eyed closers are quite likely to close in favor of a good argument. Anarchangel (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant international press attention for this individual case. -- Taketa (talk) 16:53, 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. If editors are interested in discussing the term in an historical context, and have the sources to do so at some point in the future, I will be happy to provide a copy of the deleted article upon request. Thank you, and God bless. Go Phightins! 16:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fjortis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's a Swedish (and to some extent Norwegian) slang term that means "young, immature (female) teenager". There is nothing in the article that shows particular notability or that is associated with any particular cultural attributes. It's simply a Swedish slur (among classics like hora, bög, skitunge or whatever) and right now not really beyond a dictionary definition. It was kept due to no consensus in the last AfD in 2008, but nothing has really emerged to establish this as a Swedish slur of note.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per WP:DICDEF. Not sure the topic is sufficiently encyclopedic, more of a slang pop-culture term. Still, despite the lack of WP:RS, my sense is the article is essentially correct in describing the term, since the article has been in Wikipedia for six years and has stayed in pretty much the same format and sense. Pageviews averaging 25/day, roughly, occasional spikes, so I would not be averse to keeping it either.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Move to Wiktionary.--Rpclod (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Change in recommendation is based on Peter's below comment.--Rpclod (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scandinavian slang dicdef. Wictionary is welcome to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wiktionary has had a proper entry on this word since 2008. I even added a proper citation from Aftonbladet just now. Peter ^Isotalo 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an English-Swedish dictionary. Dolovis (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a valid neologism to me. It counts with extensive references in both Norwegian and Swedish media. AfD has a tendency towards delete. Cases like this need some attentive consideration. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to keep this article in Wikipedia but wondering if there are any discussions in the media about the term -- what it means, how it is used. It would be good if there are linguistics professors talking about it, or media analysts, language experts discussing it. If there are only mentions of the term in the media, probably won't be enough to merit inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native Swede myself and I'm also huge language nerd. I've been active on and off on English Wiktionary, for example. I know that fjortis has a certain twang of the very young, bimbo-esque valley girl over it, but it's not even confined to girls, nor any social class. There are a lot of slurs and slang terms for various social classes/subcultures/age groups, like kicker (young, aggressive, usually immigrant males), svenne (an unexciting, preferably rural and slightly conservative ethnic Swede), brat (upper-class teens or young adults), emo (same as in English pretty much), stekare (slick upper-class males). All of these are fairly vague, but still much more specific than fjortis. The core meaning is really about youth and immaturity, but not much else.

Someone might be more up to date than me about this, but I've yet to see anything that can be pinned down precisely enough to merit an encyclopedia article.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see an article based on what Peter wrote! Not sure how to title it though.--Rpclod (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean along the lines of Swedish slang terms and slurs?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. The article doesn't hide the fact it is a dicdef. Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niels G. Larsen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Staglit (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. My online search found no significant coverage of this individual (the results were dominated by Wikipedia mirror sites.). The two sources provided are spare of information and provide evidence only of Larsen's existence as a brewer -- but fail to support any significant claim of notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject apparently had a nice career as a brewer. I don't see anything notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BIO, no evidence of received significant coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. The sources given in the article mention the subject but do not cover the subject in a significant way. I searched highbeam and google and found no further sources. -- Taketa (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. No reliable third party sources found. No significant coverage on search engines. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:25, 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 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Perez-Feria[edit]

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

blatant selfpromo. Effectively an unsourced BLP... The Banner talk 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI is a good reason.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:38, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My online search produced no evidence that this person is actually notable. The current version of the article is massively promotional, packed full of name dropping and such unreferenced prose gems as "Perez-Feria is currently part of 2 time Billboard Magazine's Producer of the Decade 1990-2010 superstar producer/songwriter and dear friend Rudy Perez’s all-star songwriting/production/instruction team working for IDA (Inspire & Develop Artists) an educational program for aspiring recording artists based out of Miami, Florida." If by chance, a couple of good sources are discovered and the article is kept, this article should have every single unreferenced claim pruned away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone ever made an article about themselves that wasn't so obvious. Don't they know to actually follow wiki format by looking at how others pages are. Don't use words like popular either, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The writer of this article is new, just like me. The tone was wrong and he listed no references but I spent only 40 minutes of my personal time and edited the article and included the links. I think the article needed a little tlc and a lot less bashing. Everything that's said on it is supported now and I apologize if I got the formatting wrong, like I said I'm new too. But we have to embrace the newbies don't we? The article is factual and the tone is much improved, won't you guys help me fix this article rather than deleting it? I've done what I know how to do, it would be great if someone else could help me save it from deletion by formatting it properly. Thank you in advance. WhatWillYourVerseBe (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe stubify (when proper references can be found). There is a list of links available on the talkpage (I moved them from the article). There may be something there that shows notability, though it looks this is just a list of mentions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 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. Deor (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Dork[edit]

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

Book that fails WP:NBOOKS. No references provided, no reputable references found for reviews or use in course-ware to establish book notability. Mikeblas (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, it apparently exists, but that's about all I can say for it. I don't see any reviews. Probably too soon for an article yet. Let's wait until there are some published reviews. Could also redirect to the author or the series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 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]

Redirect/Merge to Paul Howard (journalist). I think a mention there should suffice. I found little coverage beyond this brief mention and the article as it stands has too little content to be worth keeping. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests this meets WP:NBOOK.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a little digging and it appears that this book was eventually re-titled Keeping Up with the Kalashnikovs. It apparently was supposed to have been called "Raiders of the Lost Dork" but was changed somewhere prior to publication. Since all of the official information for the book has it listed as "Keeping Up with the Kalashnikovs" and Penguin has this listed under that title, I'd say that we should probably delete this article. There's really nothing here to keep. On a side note, this is kind of an example of the dangers of starting an article for a book prior to its release: the title has changed and until the work officially releases, we don't have anything to redirect this to. Maybe after it releases, but at this time there isn't enough coverage to show that this merits an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've Created the new title as a redirect, which can be expanded after publication. Maybe the cover image with the old title, File:Raiders of the Lost Dork.jpg, should be deleted?--Auric talk 12:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting it since right now we don't have anywhere we could really use it and there's no true reason to use it on the article for KUWTK if/when the book passes notability guidelines after it releases, as name changes are pretty routine for book releases and there's no reason to really do anything more than briefly mention that the book had a different name prior to its release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable book. Snappy (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no refs. I've only once seen an article with no refs survive an afd. It's been challenged and nobody has come up with anything. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have an article on the Ross O'Carroll-Kelly series and if this content belongs on Wikipedia, it belongs there. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:39, 16 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 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Person's Book of Words[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating because the subject fails WP:NBOOK. Most of the prior arguments to keep were along the lines of "real book" and "well known", though I was unable to find references to it on Google News or meaningful content in a regular Google search (i.e. a few refs in blogs, nothing from a newspaper, magazine, etc. in the first 5 pages of results). Note that the prior debate in 2005 was a full year before WP:N and WP:NBOOK were created. The book does exist and is for sale on Amazon. -Xpctr8 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I'm leaning towards redirecting it to the author's page with history. I'm finding where it's certainly a popular work and I'm finding evidence that it's used in some college classes, although not entirely enough to where I'd argue for a keep on that end. It is used as a reference for some works (like this one) and is mentioned with regularity in various books, but again- not enough to where I'd really argue for a keep using that angle. I am finding some reviews and mentions (see here), but it's very slow going so far because of how old the work itself is. I figure that leaving the article's history intact and just redirecting it would be helpful in case we ever do unearth enough sourcing to merit a keep in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a handful of reviews for NBOOK purposes and this is a borderline case but willing to give it a pass since it's one of those "quite bestsellers" that sell a steady amount never making the best seller list but accumulate more sales over time than many best-sellers do (short vs long sales). Best seller is not notable either but I'm pretty sure more sources can be found given its age and sales. -- GreenC 04:12, 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 01:44, 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. BASIC through demonstrated sources. NorthAmerica's rebuttal on available sources vs. in-article sources is correct (even though one might reasonably wish the policy were different.) j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Denmark[edit]

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

To begin with, this guy is a minor competitive eater, with no clear claim to passing any notability rules. Beyond that, our sources just do not pass the general notability guidelines. One is his own website. The other is a maybe reliable source, I could not tell for sure, but it only makes passing mention to Denmark. Google news only revealed others sources that make similar passing mention to Denmark. We lack the indepth coverage generally required for articles John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not persuaded this article fails the GNG as there is significant coverage in local media: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. These are mostly interviews but each contains a decent paragraph of independent writing about him. Sadly we don't have guidelines on competitive eating in WP:NSPORT. BethNaught (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need at least one regional source per WP:AUD.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is from a guideline on organizations and companies, not individuals. In any event, I would think the Houston Chronicle (largest circulation daily in Texas) and The Seattle Times (largest circulation daily in Washington and winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes) qualify as regional sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference from a non-authoritative source in which the subject took 14th at a competitive eating event. Not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than the state of sources within articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reliable source among the references. Plus the mere reference as an also-ran does not support notability even if the reference were a reliable source and, in fact, supports the adverse implication -- i.e., there is no "encyclopedic suitability of an article topic" as required by WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed my point that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, per WP:NRVE, wherein it states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Also note that additional sources are presented by a user in the discussion above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC upon review of sources listed above by User:BethNaught. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy D. Buol[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for biographies, specifically politicians. Minor local political figures, lacking significant coverage. RadioFan (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Debuque, a city of barely more than 50,000 in a county with less than 100,000, is not the type of major metropolis that gives its mayor's notability. We lack the indepth, significant and many sources we would require to overcome that short-coming.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is a guideline to determine if an article should be standalone, not a deletion policy. A mayor elected three times to Dubuque is obviously significant (wp:prominent), whether or not the topic is wp:notable. Notability of this type is a decision to be made on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Actually notability is determined by consensus here and reelection does not establish notability, significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources does. It is going to be hard to establish notability for a politician where a google news search on both forms of his name (with and without the middle initial) brings up zero results.--RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Google News only aggregates news hits from the past couple of weeks, and would fail to locate any coverage of him published before this month. It's a good tool for determining the accuracy of a fresh claim of notability (e.g. if he had just been elected mayor last night), but is not an infallible gauge of the notability of a politician who's held the same office since 2005. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

50K is enough population-wise to potentially confer notability on a mayor — but population is not the only criterion we use. In fact, we have a couple of other rules for determining the notability or non-notability of mayors as well, both of which are actually more definitive than the population itself: one is that the article has to be more substantive than just "Roy Buol is the mayor of Dubuque, the end", and another is that the article has to actually cite reliable sources rather than primary ones. And this article, as written, fails both of those tests. ~~No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good version, citing real sources, can be created — but this version is a delete.~~ Keep due to sourcing and substance improvements; but note that it's the improvements, not an automatic entitlement for mayors, that sway this. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources, outside of just Dubuque, that recognize Roy Buol as more than just a mayor of a city under 100,000. See the revised article. More could be done. --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 10 years council member and 8 years major of a reasonable sized city. Enough reliable sources. -- Taketa (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bejnar's work. Now it meets WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:10, 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 05:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Slightlys[edit]

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

Local Los Angeles band. Local battle-of-the-bands wins seems to disqualify A7. I can't find any reliable sources amid all the PR. —teb728 t c 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mentions found in the LA Times or LA Daily News; only a very few calendar listings in the LA Weekly. In the absence of any other sourcing in the article, these results leave me with no evidence that this band is particularly notable even as a local band in L.A., much less that it passes GNG or any other creative notability criterion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a non notable band. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some online hits, but in my opinion they have insufficient mentions in independent reliable sources to meet the GNG, and meet none of the criteria at WP:BAND. BethNaught (talk) 18:12, 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 05:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Soetens[edit]

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

Notability far from established. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While he has numerous short entries and interviews in places like Telestar, Public TV, and Closer Magazine, many of these are related sites (e.g.the network his show is on) and aside from interviews, the ones I have seen are very short. It is possible that there might be more of substance out there, but my French is lacking making searching tedious. One site seemed to say that he had been the national Kung Fu champion of France five times. If verifiable that might go a long way towards WP:Athlete. It said 5 fois champion de France de Kung-Fu, --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 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 01:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no authoritative references that confers notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any specific notability standards. I don't read French, but it's possible that there may be articles in French that show he meets WP:ENT. The martial arts claim needs reliable independent sources to support a claim of meeting WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VKB[edit]

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

Non notable club. A google search shows a bunch of WP mirrors. An orphan, nothing reaches here anyway Gbawden (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The long-form name is often spelled with an ampersand, complicating search, and the article was very puffy. However, there was a newspaper article about them in a major national paper included as an external link, and I've found two additional articles about them in reliable sources (one in a local newspaper, one in a national research newsletter), plus some more information I was then able to add. Meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:55, 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 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir;s additions, Meets GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:12, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Selvig[edit]

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

Not notable enough, information can already be found on film pages. adamstom97 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, but the character appeared in multiple films and our article provides coherent and well-arranged information about all of them, which is better than fragments scattered here and there. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thor or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors I had made a page for Darcy Lewis a while back, but as another user pointed out, it's just not enough for it's own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:29, 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 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the pages suggested by Lady Lotus. Character is relatively minor, and has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective, and is simply a plot summary of part of a few films. No real world notability is asserted. The "development" section does not actually address the character at all. It is really about actor Stellan Skarsgård, and why he chose to do the movie, which is apparently to work with Kenneth Branagh, and for variety in the types of films he acts in. Something from the section might be worth adding to Mr. Skarsgård's article, but it doesn't say anything about what Mr. Skarsgård or anyone else thinks about the character this article is supposed to be about. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:38, 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 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Also, proposed merger targets are either too specific (not just a Thor character) or inaccurate (fictional character, not an actor). - Dravecky (talk) 22:57, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heshy Fried[edit]

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

WP:GNG Two stories, from minor sources about the subject. a few more in passing references, also from minor sources. Doesn't meet the criteria imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 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]

Delete Agree with nom needs more. -- GreenC 02:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's significant coverage in a book called The New Jewish Leaders: Reshaping the American Jewish Landscape, written by respected historian Jack Wertheimer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three out of seven links are dead. One is a link to the subject's own blog, does not discuss the subject, and thus is inappropriate as a reference. Three references are decent, but insufficient for me to recommend retention. I am hoping that an author can fix or supplement.--Rpclod (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr Granger, for fixing the dead links. Unfortunately, the three revived references merely mention the subject in passing and are not sources of information regarding the subject. With only three references, I will remain on the fence.--Rpclod (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With two Google Books links showing (The New Jewish Leaders: Reshaping the American Jewish Landscape, and The Ashgate Research Companion to Contemporary Religion), and no disclaimer in the nomination, despite comprehensive criticism of the sources currently in the article, it is clear the nomination has not fulfilled WP:BEFORE. "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." It is necessary for nominators to explore what sources MAY BE FOUND TO EXIST, whether or not they actually add them to the article (as is preferable). Furthermore, the regular link in the Find Sources list has literally dozens of links to sources of all types, showing attention from more than a niche community-Jewish Orthodox sites to Jewish criticism sites to sites about comedy to gay sites. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found some coverage in gourmet cooking sources, Anarchangel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The War with Mr. Wizzle[edit]

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

Childrens' book that fails WP:NBOOKS. Tagged for primary sources for about six years; no credible sources are available to establish notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 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!*} 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant as part of the Macdonald Hall series. Appears to be part of the curriculum in multiple schools (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Tchaliburton (talk) 19:25, 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 01:26, 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 redirect to The Bachelor (U.S. TV series). j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bachelor (season 19)[edit]

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

This will likely warrant an entry at some point, but right now it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Should be recreated when there is actual info available. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bachelor (U.S. TV series), working on the assumption that there is at least sources that confirm this is planned. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem - Any articles on seasons that haven't been aired/confirmed are usually redirected anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:46, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 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. Consensus is that WP:PROF is met. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Hurley[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only source is a faculty listing, non-notable professor. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holds a named chair appointment (WP:PROF#C5) per this. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 19:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the pass of WP:PROF#C5 indicated above, he also passes #C1 with (according to his Google scholar profile) 44 publications cited 100 or more times and an h-index of 66. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 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 01:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the very relevant comments by EricEnfermero and David Eppstein. Holder of a named chair at Berkeley ain't chopped liver. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:PROF, criterion 2 and 5. Since the nomination sources have been added. I agree with earlier commenters that a named chair at a noted University makes him noteworthy for an article of his own. Also I consider the prize in their own field a recognition that this person is at the top of their field of study. -- Taketa (talk) 07:46, 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. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Space Nazis[edit]

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

It hardly makes sense to sum up conspiracy theories about Nazi moon bases, adoption of Nazism by alien races in different ways, and alien races / human regimes resembling Nazism to varying degrees (no chance to delimit this). This article is a synthesis in itself. KnightMove (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the amusing title, this is a listicle without spark, imagination, or enough coherence to be useful. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Rename?) Nazi Germany getting into space is a well known theme in alternate history science fiction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Anthony's reasoning, this idea is present in lots of fiction. However, it may need a renamed title such as Nazis in Space or Space Nazis (Fiction). Frmorrison (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is one big hunk of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and a quick search shows that it is likely to remain so. I do not find any kind of real literary study of this idea, though no doubt eventually it'll appear somewhere in the scholarly literature. What we have here is an escapee from TV Tropes, and it should be returned to its original confines. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This does seem like an escapee from TV Tropes. Is there any actual discussion of this trope in reliable sources? All I see are references to the film Iron Sky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 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, Wifione ^Message 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well-known science-fiction theme. 122.60.167.21 (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC) (BTW, there was a BBC story about this recently). 122.60.167.21 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nazis in outer space. Herostratus (talk) 14:55, 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. Good save, and an indication of why it's dangerous to try and apply pop music standards to world music artists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afshin (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial and reliable published works. No indication of them ever being signed to a major record label. Has not won or been nominated for any major music awards. All in all rather un-notable. AlanS (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Probable vanity page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Afshin is a long-running artist with 6 albums in more than 13 years, tens of music videos and hundreds of concerts in tens of countries and yes in Farsi. Asking for a major record label from such artists is truly excessive. As if we want to delete a priori with not much thought put in our decision... Do we really need Universal, Sony and Warner for ethnic artists to pass them? ParsiVideos Afshin is associated with is one of the biggest music producers in Iranian diasporan music with access to hundreds of websites and tens of radio and TV stations and ethnic international satellite now 24 on 24. With your run-of-the-mill local struggling artists who put their output, these ethnic diaspora artists are veritable international artists in their own right. Afshin is very well-known in Iranian ethnic communities not only in his home country Germany, but in Belgium, Netherlands, UK, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, US, Australia, the Middle East, UAE and Gulf as well as in Iran and central Asian countries with multiple appearances on satellite television. Sadly English Wikipedia seems to be biased against true ethnic stars. As soon as we see some ethnic name, or album titles we can't read or media articles we don't understand, suddenly deletion requests follow. It seems these artists and their articles cannot win... add to it the inexperience of the contributors who propose these articles on them. Iranian diaspora artists are already persecuted by the Iranian regime who tries to obliterate their pop and dance materials and forbid its spread, whereas songs of artists like Afshin are an outlet for Iranian western-oriented youth inside Iran who take their Wikipedia very seriously and would be insensed by your suggestion as an indirect aid to the regime they despise. If you have just 5 -6 minutes check this video for example that created so much controversy Afshin's "Dokhtar Shirazi". These artists also play a role in trying to preserve the ethnic culture and language in diaspora youth that is forgetting the language albeit with modern western pop and dance music which even traditionalists despise and want to go away.... What we are doing is helping such process by deleting everything that comes our way from ethnics. It is high time rules other than applied for English language artists is applied for non-English diaspora artists in non-English languages in English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not for English language artists but all international artists in all languages and a great extra supplement to language Wikipedias. werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Totally agree with @werldwayd .

You can always remove our articles. i Sorry for English Wikipedia administrators. Saeed.hakimii (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia may be biased in its coverage, but this article still fails WP:GNG as it currently stands. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. I found this article pretty quickly once I started searching for his name in Farsi (افشین جعفری). I can't be 100% sure it's a reliable source, but there also seem to be several television interviews which have been posted to YouTube as well. The relentless copyvio images need to be removed, but that's more an issue for Commons. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:45, 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, Wifione ^Message 00:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good job IronGargoyle. Antrocent (♫♬) 09:43, 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 18:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straitjacket Society[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy group. Fails notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Straitjacket Society has helped launch the careers of 500 actors. It owns the famous 6470 Theatre in LA. Two notable alumni, Jillian Bell who has a Wikipedia page and became a writer for Saturday Night Live got her start here as did Sarah Tiana whose character "Carmen" from Straitjacket Society became a recurring character on the TV show Reno 911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchocigars (talk • contribs) — Grouchocigars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - The claim of 500 actors is a rather large one, but more importantly it is unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated claims are not considered valid support for Wikipedia articles. Additionally, owning a theater does not make anyone or anything notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Nor does the possible notability of people that got their start there. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. The group lacks verifable, independent references to support the notability of the group. reddogsix (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GROUP.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:55, 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, Wifione ^Message 00:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I am a fan of this kind of small off-the-radar comedy troupe, but most of them fail GNG and so does this one. It doesn't seem to have gotten any notice at all from Reliable Sources; it doesn't even seem to be included in routine media listings of events. Searching turned up only social media and such, and an unrelated book by the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 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 speedily deleted and salted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Clay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. He played college ball for Clemson, but doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Appears to play for the Bloomington Edge (see [42]), an indoor football team. A search in pro-football-reference.com brings back nothing. He may have been drafted by the Dallas Cowboys, but www.dallascowboys.com doesn't mention him, and there's no indication he ever played an NFL game. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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.

[1] ttp://www.granitsol.com/Default.asp?PageId=13684&FragmentId=469125

[2] Jesse McLean; David Bruser (6 Jan 2014). "Dean Blundell Show cancelled after suspension over on-air homophobic commentary". Retrieved 30 July 2014.

[3] "Cauliflower Alley Club Lends an Ear to Boxers, Wrestlers". Los Angeles Times.

[4] "Cauliflower Alley Club: 'Gentle and Warm People'". The Argus-Press.

[5] Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. p. 65.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]