Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 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 Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jerry Frankel. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Frankel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winning a game show tournament (even if it was the first) is not criteria that meets GNG. Contestants on Jeopardy! are rarely notable, usually only if they have set major records on the show, or they have transcended the show and become national news stories on their own. Frankel has done neither. Subject is included in List of Jeopardy! contestants, but that does not mean this subject individually meets GNG.

Google search of subject does not provide any reliable source that meets GNG, and adding the word "Jeopardy" to search does not provide any other evidence this person meets GNG.

Only references are links to iMDB (see WP:CITINGIMDB) and a Jeopardy fan site. AldezD (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Jeopardy!_contestants#Chuck_Forrest! as man's only notable for one event.--Laun chba ller 21:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Jeopardy!_contestants or Delete. I don't see any coverage at all. I was expecting to find a few trivial mentions scattered around, but not even the Google News Archive or Highbeam Research mention him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why call for redirect of Jerry Frankel to Chuck Forrest? That does not seem to make sense, please explain rationale intended. Also, link to Chuck Forrest does not work. --do ncr am 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant List of Jeopardy! contestants#Jerry Frankel, I shouldn't edit Wikipedia whilst tired.--Laun chba ller 11:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled HBO Rock'n Roll Project[edit]

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

This is a non-notable television pilot which recently began filming, not an upcoming series, as stated in the article. Many, many pilots never make it to series. This one doesn't even have a title yet. WP:TOOSOON (Note that I removed the plot section for WP:COPYVIO, but I have not checked the rest of the article.) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. This article shouldn't exist at least until the "Series" has a title and more references. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a pilot, and HBO does have a history of ordering pilots and even entire series that don't make it to air. Wait for a title and airdate. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since it's going to air in 4 days time there's really not much deleting, If by October it'snot improved I suggest renomming. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Aur Uske Cousins[edit]

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

Upcoming TV programme with no evidence of meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. I prodded but it was removed. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The show has promos being aired already on TV. Its scheduled to air on Star Plus from 18th August as per the channel's website. Not worth deleting for few days when it will be recreated soon. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dharmadhyaksha. Chander For You 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since its scheduled to air on Star Plus from 18th August I don't think deleting it would benefit WP when it would be created again in a week or so.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor flight dynamics[edit]

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

No evidence this topic is notable enough for inclusion. The bulk of the content of this article appears to be sourced only to papers by the creator of the article. (The additional references to prior works solely define the background concepts and do not discuss the topic of tensor flight dynamics.) The article reads like a review of the author's work without imparting any actual information about the topic. Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable: nothing for "Tensor flight dynamics" on ZMATH, two relevant hits hits on GBooks, three on Scholar. Deltahedron (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Mostly per Deltahedron. I poked around the IEEE Explorer site and did a bit more hunting through google scholar, and there's just not enough there there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:17, 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 00:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Show Exhibitors Association[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non notable association which has now changed it's name. Unreferenced for 6 years. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advert for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:51, 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. Secret ^account 17:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles related to socialist cults of personality[edit]

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is arbitrary and does not meet WP:GNG. I can't find any references that specifically discuss titles related to socialist leaders of personality. The whole thing seems to be a case of original research. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the one day point in any article which is a list of anything at all, it will, indeed, be "arbitrary." I am more concerned about the use of "socialist" in the name as not being necessarily borne out by the entries so far given, GNG does not apply to lists of this type qua lists - the notability should relate to whether titles of leaders can be found to be a distinct topic. IMHO, such a list may well fit into the project. Collect (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever the title of the list claims, this page's history suggests that it is meant as an attack on the Norwegian Labour Party. (Kim, Hitler, Mussolini, Brundtland, Gerhardsen: pick the odd ones out...) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The "history" is incredibly short, and content issues are always best handled on the article talk page. Perhaps "Unusual titles for supreme leaders of nations or political organizations" might be more apt - but that is not the same as deleting this list at the one day mark. Supreme leader is close - but the key is not just usual names for such persons,but ones of sufficient uniqueness as to be notable otherwise. I retain my opinion that "socialist" is not reasonably included here, but that is not,initself, grounds for deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...or anything, really, just fix it. This whole area of Wikipedia is a shambles, with Honorific and English honorific vying with Title for the same subject matter, and this four-entry list of microscopically focused title and considerably wider COATRACK with only one citation surfing in on some fancy layout. Anarchangel (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note an AfD for an article with the same content by the same editor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialist titles of honour. Anarchangel (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The topic itself does not demonstrate notability. Chillum 07:19, 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 Redirect as no reliable sourcing could be found to pass WP:GNG. (Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comic and Curious Cats[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and completely unsourced. Couldn't find any significant coverage on it LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I'm not finding a huge amount, but I am finding a bit that suggests more coverage in that some books about Carter tend to list it as a highlight of her work. I am finding some mild use of it in classrooms, but not enough to really make a big difference in notability. It looks like if there is more coverage, it never got uploaded onto the Internet. Most of what I'm finding mentions it in relation to Carter, so if all else fails I'd suggest redirecting this to her bibliography section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to to the redirect LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To the parent author. Not enough notability to warranty a fulsome article other than a stub. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Mercurio[edit]

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

Author apparently got impatient waiting for an ~~AfD~~ AfC review, I'm unable to find, and the article doesn't provide, sources to references which would evidence notability under our general notability guideline. There may very well be such sources, of course, language barriers may be at issue. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 19:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean AfC review, don't you? ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography written in PR prose: "eternal city of Rome", "comprehensive art solutions provider" (presumably not meaning turps and white spirit) and sourced to primary sources. Multiple searches are not turning up anything better. Fails WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: AllyD summed it up nicely. The draft was not accepted and the author moved it into the article space themself. It may be worth putting it back into AfC and seeing if the author can improve on it, but it does not belong in the article space. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 03:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has stated what language they tried to find sources in - English or Italian. If no English sources can be found, perhaps Italian? And if Italian, maybe this article is better suited at the Italian Wikipedia? Just a thought. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:17, 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. I find Bearcat's arguments to be the most persuasive given the current state of the article. No prejudice to recreation if there are reliable sources asserting a substantive claim of notability are included; if any re-creation fails that standard, it can be deleted per CSD G4. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Baden-Powell[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose only substantive claim of encyclopedic notability is happening to have Baden-Powell for a surname (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Robert Baden-Powell), and citing only a genealogy for sourcing. I'd be willing to withdraw this if a substantive claim of notability, supported by reliable sources, could be added, but Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate the publication of genealogy research. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 20:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, (quoting Mandy Rice-Davies I would say that, wouldn't I. Actually, her surname is irrelevant - it was actually Smith before she married in 1943, after most of the derring-do; she and her husband were POWELLs, and changed their name in 1956 (I believe), and I don't think there is any connection with B-P. However, her name is mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles, e.g. Special Operations Executive and List of female SOE agents, in both of which very few do not have their own article. RobinClay (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that her surname is irrelevant. It would not be surprising for a WW2 SOE person who published 3 books about it to satisfy WP:BIO, but how much coverage is there in independent reliable sources, about her specifically or about her books? That is what we need to see, not mentions in other Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the article had been citing any actual reliable sources to demonstrate her notability as a writer, ....

How about these reviews ? RobinClay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.com/ss/customer-reviews/0709167482/ref=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer?_encoding=UTF8&k=Pimpernel%20Gold&ref_=cm_cr_dp_syn_footer&showViewpoints=1 ?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0709077157/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Amazon reviews are not reliable sources. Coverage in real media, and only coverage in real media, counts toward notability at all. We don't keep an article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sources as evidence that their books exist — you have to show media coverage which demonstrates that independent reliable sources paid attention to her writing career. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.... then I'd have left it alone. But if the article as written is sourced only to a genealogy chart, then the family relationship itself is the only claim of notability we can assess on the basis of the sourcing at hand. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing about her writing beefs up a ton, but not as long as it relies exclusively on primary sources like this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had a look at the articles on a few other "female S.O.E. agents", and some of their entries are also relatively sparse. By the very nature of their profession, much was (and still is) kept secret. An article on her (I never saw it) was deleted some years ago, so "I'm not the first" to believe she merits one. If that page were still to exist somewhere out there in the ether, perhaps a combination would satisfy you. I expect to uncover more; the search continues. "Author of [at least] three books" is quite something in itself. RobinClay (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note this is a new article from a reasonably experienced editor. Someone else has tagged the article for "major restructuring". I suggest we hold off for a while, and hope for improvement in the next weeks. There is a hint of notability showing. --Dmol (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think she is notable as a member of the Special Operations Executive. Biscuittin (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Where is this article going? Bearian (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not understand. What is being hidden? Biscuittin (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could do with some more work but as an author of three books and a SOE operative she is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 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 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morino[edit]

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

WP:BLP, entirely unsourced, of a person notable only as the leader of a minor political party and as a municipal councillor, neither of which is a role that entitles a person to an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if enough sourcing can be provided to get him past WP:GNG, but neither of these positions entitle a person to keep an unsourced article on Wikipedia under 2014-vintage content standards. Delete if the sourcing can't be beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just can't find the significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. All I can find are mentions of him in routine news items about cases that he was involved with as a lawyer. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and perhaps WP:RS --Jersey92 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Jersey92 - Fails WP:NPOL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not NPOL. No significant coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Edgly[edit]

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

Possible hoax. No indication that the subject even exists, let alone has the claimed acting credentials. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a likely hoax. There are no reliable sources to back up the assertion that the subject of this article has done anything more than possibly community theatre. EricSerge (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as confirmed hoax. The image "Raven Edgly in Titus Andronicus" on the page is that of English actress Flora Spencer-Longhurst. That along with the mention of "Anna Rexic" (Anorexic) confirms this as a hoax NQ talk 19:03, 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 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Email Company[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct email spam company. damiens.rf 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None or very little notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 19:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable company. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kao[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP about non-notable person. damiens.rf 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Totally N/N. I wonder how it could stay for months here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non notable CEO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:30, 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 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Horse[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article that is either an hoax or a badly written advertisement. damiens.rf 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing else to add. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable ride .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it into the Leofoo Village Theme Park article - there is mention of, and a photo of, the "flying horses" ride in that article so it does exist, but it is not notable enough for an article by itself. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find a reason why this component of the park is special. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Tiptoe there. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable ride. There really isn't anything to merge, the only content is an unreferenced description of the ride. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:56, 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 vocal protest of two editors, they have failed to show how/why this passes any of our notability criteria, whereas the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based. Boss Reality and Starman005 (if ever the latter gets unblocked) are strongly reminded of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave vonKleist[edit]

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

After finding quite a bit of copyvio in this article from [1] I tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it. The only clearly reliable sources I found was a book at [2] which mentions him in connection with the documentary 911:In Plane Site but doesn't tell us very much about him. Seems to fail our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claim of notability as a "radio show host, musician, author, activist and film producer" fails various guidelines set forth due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. I did find trivial mentions in two separate news reports,[3][4] a magazine, [5] and another book.[6] Various other mentions in fringe or non-reliable sources, including Coast to Coast AM.[7] I agree with the nom that there is not enough in reliable sources to form a reliably-sourced biographical article. Location (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP seems to indicate that we should remove this from the website. jps (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:FRINGEBLP and fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like should be a snow delete. Fails any possible notability category. FRINGEBLP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, And this is another one that shouldn't be deleted. Highly Notable, Notable for his contribution to the 9/11 Truth movement. His ground breaking film 911: In Plane Site. And what about his profile as a talk show host. Massive profile. Numerous contributions , Too much to be ignored! Also a recognized and respected recording artist with four albums released. (Starman005 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, I wonder if I am now the target of Chief Censor Dougweller and have incurred his wrath for backing boss reality ? (Starman005 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

There Is No Cabal - just a failure to understand the basic guidelines and policies that guide Wikipedia. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such as WP:RS. I note that Starman005 has added this book[8] as a source. It's published by El Shaddai Publishers/Bed and Breakfast.[9] who writes "shortly to occur Second Coming. You will be convinced to cast off your complacency and your unpreparedness as you read of the coming worldwide disorder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - while prolific among the fringe, little to no mention in reliable sources. WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:GNG and WP:RS is relevant here. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So that earns the article an additional !vote for delete per WP:BLP. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm taking the unusual step of posting someone else's work here in the Deletion Discussion forum for a particular reason. Mainly because another member here has said that it lacks the notability and I think that I may have picked up on something.
QUOTE WegianWarrior Delete as non-notable - while prolific among the fringe, little to no mention in reliable sources. WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:GNG and WP:RS is relevant here. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well now, the self published refs mainly refer to the music and film releases which I have looked up and can most likely be referenced elswhere on nortable sites. This appears to be a repetition of what I have had to endure. (Boss Reality (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Per this edit, I have removed your reposting of the mainspace article within this discusssion. Afd discussions are to decide the fate of an article. We do not move entire articles to their respective Afd discussions in order to preserve them. Location (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure why Boss Reality feels a need to quote what I said a couple of lines up, nor I am sure what self-published sources has to do with the policies I refereed to... but IF reliable sources exists, why are they not used in the article? Though in all fairness, Starman005 have stripped out a few references I tagged as unreliable and self published - even if the article still falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:BLP WegianWarrior (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notblity is established and I agree with the creator, Also there seem to be NY Times and NBC linkes too. Good enough ! (Boss Reality (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

- CommentAgain, you have shown no guideline based evidence. You don't even appear to have checked the links. The NY Times link[10] doesn't discuss him at all, has no biography, etc. It couldn't be more trivial and speaks to his lack of notability. The NBC/AP article simply quotes him briefly with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simply quotes him? Most people get paraphrased. And NBC doesn't do indepth, you have to go to Washington Post or New York Times or at the very least Time to get a discussion. It is all very well having good taste in newspapers, but leave your aesthetic sensibilities at home when you come to the real world, would you please, D? Thanks. Anarchangel (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - I refer to what the page looks / looked like at a certain time. So looking at this capture here I made after the last edit done by WegianWarrior at 11:42, 10 August 2014‎. That's what the page looked like after his / her edit. Basically the statement by this person is totaly incorrect. WegianWarrior says he / she has been through all the refs twice.
Quote WegianWarrior: "I have gone though every single reference twice after Starman005 have been working on it. The article seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published."
This is incorrect and even I can see (with one eye closed) that the main foundation of the article is reliant on credible refs. Sure there are some self publshed refs. The self published refs are to do with some of the recordings released and a film or 2. It's the same as saying a house with concrete foundations has bamboo foundations and is unsteady just because the window covers are made from bamboo. If there is a bit of intentional misleading then that's very naughty of our young friend. If not then very careless and reckless. But besides that I know that this is a repetition of what happened with my articles and I do believe I detect censorship yet again. I'm not losing my mind here as I have asked others to look in and they have seen what I've seen. Now it seems others have to endure this with their articles and have their work deleted. Could this be so that people are now deciding what others should access? I do know from my limited time here that certain articles are much more likely to be deleted go against the official version of things and if the people they're about are hated by certain groups or organisations. This is commonn knowledge.I remember once a case of a boy messing up his brothers bed then calling his mother to say his brother hadn't made his bed. He may now have grown up into a man I once worked with who would sabotage other co workers projects to make them look bad. If Wikipedia is going to be an encylopedia with blanked out pages then we need to have a good long look at things and decide if this should be a place where one group decides what others should see and know. I can tell you right here and now that's not something I'd support. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It seems to me like you still don't have a policy-based reason why we should keep this, and are resorting to attacking your fellow editors.. frankly, it makes it hard for me to assume good faith on your part any longer. However, lets have a look at the article as it stands now (per the time I'm typing). There is 22 references listed.

One goes to a transcript on "CNN.com" from the Glen Beck Show, which is at best borderline fringe.
One is "Escapee From America Magazine", which has all indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS.
Five is "Coast to Coast AM", which is catering to the fringe, fails WP:RS
One is to "Freedom's Phoenix", which appears to be a fringe website, fails WP:RS
One is to vonKleinst own website, self-published, as such ought to be avoided
One is to "lewrockwell.com", which has all the indications of a fringe website, fails WP:RS
One is to "Wake Up! the Lord is Returning", a self-published book that appears far fringe, fails WP:RS (I hope the author's bed&breakfast is better than his book though)
One is to "911inplanesite.com", a self-published fringe website, fails WP:RS
One is to "Why Do Drugs Cost So Much?", another self published fringe book, fails WP:RS
One is to "William Lewis Films", and is a dead link... looking at our article on William Lewis (film director) though, it's pretty clear that it's fringe as well.

That is fourteen (14) fringe and/or self-published sources, out of twenty-two. So yes, this article, as it stands, seems to be reliant on non-reliable fringe sources, many of them self-published. So... do you have any policy backed arguments as to why this should stay, or is this a purely emotional reaction from you? WegianWarrior (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually 16 sources. The AllMusic ref lists three albums the label is CD Baby which is a self publishing vehicle, so no record label has produced/distributed his work. IMDb, AllMovie and the info page hosted at The New York Times website (based on unedited content from Baseline) three very low quality sources. The NBC News source is "Weird NNBC News" news of the weird sections/features are specifically discussed in policy as not reliable sources. The New Scientist article makes passing mention also something discussed in policy as not supporting notability. The other sources are discussed above as non RS Fringe junk. The Coast to Coast ref in addition to being fringe is a bio of a guest on a talk radio show promotional bios are not RS. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Total fail of notability in any possible classification/category. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny he hasn't linked any of the websites that mention his ~~relationships~~ (striking this as it is 'associations', not necessarily relationships) with neo-Nazis and other far-righters. Something that several of these biographies (eg his wife) have in common. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would just like to point out that Coast to Coast AM is a globally syndicated radio program which has interviewed everyone from Michio Kaku, Kevin Mitnick, Pat Boone, David Talbot etc (they cover a lot of ground); the original host Art Bell was interviewed by Larry King. Maybe the episodes should be cited instead of the Bio (which are usually written by Coast anyway, not the subjects). Lew Rockwell(.com) is not fringe (they run the same content as Common Dreams) - LR is an WP:RS. Claiming that CNN and Glenn Beck are fringe is simply preposterous - by that token Democracy Now would be as well. Mayhaps the above alleged National Socialist connections are not mentioned because we lack an RS? (although, there is also nothing inherently wrong with a far-"right" association; I do not see why it was even mentioned, by an Admin no less) His wife is lacking an article here and is not the subject of this article, so it is of no concern with this discussion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Verifiability policy and the Reliable sources guideline. Note that being globally syndicated, having an impressive guest list or having a previous host interviewed by a notable late night TV talk show host are not in any way support for Coast to Coast as being a reliable source. Coast to Coast has consistently presented poorly fact checked and fringe material, they have no reputation as a serious journalistic endeavor. They don't meet the standards which are clearly explained in the policy and the guideline, please read and understand them. Glenn Beck has certainly taken a number of fringe positions and his credibility has suffered extensively. His journalistic reputation is not that of a reliable source, his show and the content presented on it have been held at a distance by CNN and clearly the editorial oversight and fact checking have been grossly lacking. Lew Rockwell has consistently advocated fringe views, has an editorial veiwpoint clearly at odds with mainstream academia. Please read the Fringe theories guideline. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply & Comment to Dougweller, You say you "have tried to find reliable sources to rewrite it". I say no! You and your crew have already deleted 2 or 3 articles by boss reality and just recenly one Beyond Treason by the person who created the article and put in all the hard work. That film was Grand Festival Award Winner 2005 at the Berkeley Film Festival and you and your crew have destroyed the hard work that others have done because of various reasons. Now Dave vonKleist is next to go. What else have you got on your list? (Starman005 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment & Reply to Dougweller, you said "hasn'e linked any of the websites that mention his relationships with neo-Nazis". This is the firsdt that I have heard of anything to do with Neo Nazis andd I have researched von Kleist. What I see here is a childish attempt to do something untoward. This is now possibly a violation of Wikipedia policy and certainly grounds to alert Mr von Kliest of this so he can seek some legal advice. I'm disgusted that you'd try this on and you are supposed to be an administrator. I'll make sure that Mr von Kleist knows of this just in case he wants to act on it. (Starman005 (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reported this to WP:ANI under WP:NLT. I did a basic Google search on "Dave vonKleist" and this sort of stuff came up on the first page. I don't know how you search for him without finding it. Most of the stuff about him is indeed not in reliable sources, that is why we have this AfD. I am not calling him a neo-Nazi. 07:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

As was inevitable and firm policy, another Admin has indefinitely blocked Starman005. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Starman005: You shouldn't call the fire dept. when you're pouring fuel onto a fire which you've lit...

@Dougweller: You may wish to investigate a phenomenon known as the Filter Bubble (here is a TED Talk) which is used heavily by Google and shows us all different content (I didn't get any National Socialism stuff either, mostly just forums and self pub on first page). -- dsprc ^[talk]

@Dsprc:Interesting. Right above "Dave vonKleist - 911 In Plane Site" I get a site dedicated to him, "DAVE VONKLEIST, SPY & NAZI DISINFORMER". I'd think that and simmilar sites would show up on any ordinary search although maybe not page 1 even with the filter bubble effect. I don't often search for neonazi but maybe having found it earlier and looked at it it bounced it up on my next search. Ah, just discovered that if you search on his name without quotation marks that site shows on the 2nd page, if I use "Dave vonKleist" with quotation marks it's on the first page. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to the site senior admin and I mean senior! I hve just seen what has happened on the article page and last edits by MrBill3 and previously WegianWarrior. To me it seems that they're doing to this article exactly what happened to mine. They're making it look as shoddy as they can and they're doing it at a feverish pitch. All this unrelaible source for the music links is there to possibly put others off from helping to improve the arrticle. This appears to me to be an organised and coordinated effort involving a core group of about 5 users. Please look into this. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- - @Boss Reality:, there is no such thing as a "senior admin", Wikipedia:Administrators. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boss Reality: We have Wikipedia:Noticeboards for this, please address your issues there, if appropriate, as this is not the correct venue for such matters. However, I believe you will find a different outcome from the one you intended pursuing this course of action. @CambridgeBayWeather: surely there must be senior citizens with Adminship amongst our ranks? (I dare not out any however) :) -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Dsprc:, there are several Wikipedians older than me and I'm not quite old enough to quite old enough for the senior citizen title yet. However, I do qualify as an elder in our town and that, at least, gets me a 10% discount at our Northern Store. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Dsprc, note I did not say he had National Socialist connections but that he had relationships with neo-Nazis and other far-righters. And writing that now I realise that I was using the wrong word, I meant associations, eg sharing the same platforms - apologies. As for Joyce Riley, she did have an article which was changed to a redirect to a now deleted article. And details about her have been continually inserted into this and other articles. She's also been used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that having established an account at CD Baby and self publishing a trio of "albums" and the resulting listing at AllMusic does not create a reliable source. To establish that an individual is a musician of encyclopedic note requires a source that reports, providing significant coverage, on the music industry or the the culture therof (or the academic disciplines, scholarly analysis or at least critical analysis in a reliable source). The WorldCat link is rather telling, a work held in a grand total of two libraries in the world is clearly not a notable or significant work or the level of importance to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia. You can also see that each tag I placed had a WP:RS based rationale. I strongly suggest a reading for comprehension of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::* Reply to MrBill3, Doesn't matter if the CD's are on CD baby or not. I believe you're attempt at making the point is to support your agenda. Now imagine this, If Harry Wayne Casey of KC & The Sunshine Band hadn't found an overseas distributor for his records then they would have been released on his TK Records label which is the one he formed himself to get them out. They'd be self published then and I know that you wouldn't be tattooing his page with the like you've done here. Friend, sorry I disagree with you all the way on that and that doesn't stack up at all. (Boss Reality (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comparisons to make the point- Again I'm taking the unusual step to post here 2 comparisons of edits. One last edit by starman 005 who created thew article and the other by MrBill3 who after WegianWarrior has deliberately made a mess of the article by tagging it in a way that by my observations could only be described as a strategic manoeuvrings to discredit the article to hasten and ensure it's deletion. This tactic has been previously and successfully applied by WegianWarrior and my good friend Dougweller and usual core group that follow him around. Rather than discussing the quality of the links that have also been pointed out by 2 other editors here to be worthy, this tactic is instead employed. And again I emphasize it's done IMO to get rid of the article. The questions pops up like a helium balloon riding a huge sudden gust of wind .... What's the agenda? (Boss Reality (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Boss Reality: Please use links and make use of the history page, reposting the entire article is unreadable. The best thing is use a Diff to show the changes from one version to another.

Revision as of 05:12, 10 August 2014 by Starman005

Diff to MrBill3

As to an agenda, everyone has one so cool it. By that I mean there are different philosophies on editorial control. There are deletionist and inclusionist with most editors in between. While I can appreciate you see tactics, it could simply be bold editing to get a never-ending job done. There are over 4.5million articles on the English Wikipedia, having a drawn out debate on each issue isn't in the cards.

Currently I'm neutral to the deletion to give the article time to shore up 3rd party refs, but that's being generous; self published refs are a big red flag @ Wikipedia when it comes to Bios. Roy Boy 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to RoyBoy, I was trying to show where and how the IMO the messing up of an article occurs. BTW: thanks for the info amigo. I wasn't sure how to do it. I think I may be OK for next time. I'll try to sandbox test and see if it works the way I want. Cheers (Boss Reality (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment regarding the messing up of the article which IMO would likely discourage others from improving it (if improvement warranted). If you look here you'll see the difference between the 2 vastly examples of the edit. One recent one by starman 005 and a more recent one by MrBill 3. So look here -->> My edit Revision as of 23:01, 13 August 2014 by by Boss Reality. You'll have to scroll right down the page to see the examples and you'll see one example, the top one of the two. Now it's obvious it's up for deletion. Someone may come along and improve the article. Now the one right at the bottom that has IMO been tattooed with so much that most people wouldn't bother with it. So the deletion process in this case has been greatly stacked in favor of one stance while the other stance has been greatly handicapped. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Observation, I've just been looking over the board below
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Anti-depleted uranium weapons activism - truthers etc.
Quote: Dougweller Just ran into this. Seems to be just a propaganda piece. Eg "Doug Rokke is a former Army Reserve Major who enlisted in 1967. He considers it his patriotic duty to tell the world aboput the dangers of depleted uranium has posed to the servicemen and the public. He also talks about the military coverup about the thousands of affected veterans". Rokke for instance is some sort of "truther" who participates in neo-Nazi conferences.[3] (Nordwave is an American National Socialist organization created in 2000 by Alex Hassinger.). User:Bachcell/Leuren Moret is another conspiracy theorist - see her website[4] - which I note says she also worked on mind control for HAARP. Joyce Riley is also a believer in a massive coverup.[5][6]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Please note other content in between these 2 entries not included.
Quote DougwellerYes. This article is clearly fringe - it's all about a fringe view about a global conspiracy and pushes fringe people with neo-Nazi connections. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
All I can say here is it's not a good look at this kind of what I believe to be carlessness and possible naughtiness should that not be encouraged. It could give folks the wrong idea. So please let's play fair. Thanks (Boss Reality (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment You sure you are at the right article? This isn't about Rokke but about vonKleist. Of course if you are just posting to attack me, maybe this is the wrong place. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 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 00:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Ooteghem[edit]

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

This article is just a curriculum vitae for a non-notable professional. damiens.rf 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability. One source, his own "blog", the other, the radio station's programme bulletin. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above. Non-notable JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:50, 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 snow close and salt. This looks like it was deleted quite a few times already under various different names (created once already at Shot 2015 prior to its move, Shot (2015 film ), Shot (2015)) and this appears to be a case of sockpuppetry by User:Murtazakhojami as well, so I'll indef the accounts involved and open up an SPI to check for sleepers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shot 2015[edit]

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

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

Non-notable future film. The use of false citations (this article claiming to be about Khojami, but actually being about a completely different director and film) does not bolster my confidence that this article was created in good faith. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falsified citations indicate that if this film is not a hoax, it is not notable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable at best, or something made up at school one day at worst. --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article has been moved to Shot (2015 film). --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-Delete per WP:G5. Article created by sock of banned user.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, we don't have confirmation of that fact yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of significance, non-notable.Kavdiamanju (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article's beyond saving, Anyway per above non notable film. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:52, 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. Discussion regarding a potential merge or name change can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globular Flute[edit]

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

Contested PROD. It was unreferenced and now one source is found, so we know this flute exists, it is not an OR. However we don't have multiple independent reliable sources on it; at least I could not find any. Dubious notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. Globular Flute is another name for Vessel flute, see [11]. Perhaps some of the information can be transferred there. GeorgeMisty (talk) 17

44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's see what other people will say. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it is "another name for" is irrelevant here. The article is not about "globular flutes" / "vessel flutes" in general, it is about a particular neolithic object, a globular flute which is, due to its uniqueness, simply known as the "globular flute" - though some other sources name it the "Miramor flute", (see [12]), so that, or "Miramor globular flute", could be an alternative article title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But change the title to Mramor globular flute. This AFD seems laughable to me. In an previous incarnation of it Why should I have a User Name? gave as his reasoning "No sources, no notability. Archeological museums around the world are full of similar findings". I wonder what museums the proposer frequents that are "full of" neolithic musical instruments! Such objects are incredibly rare. Why should I have a User Name? likes tagging things - but he NEVER searches for sources. Tagging is easy, source searching is difficult. I found several sources for this article, and I also found footnote citations mentioning the object's existance in specialist sources as well, indicating its notability and importance amongs specialists of this period. It was also depicted in the cover photo of an exhibition of neolithic instruments, and if you search youtube you can find several examples of musicians playing replicas of it. I dod not add those additional refferences to the article because I felt what is there easily shows notability and importance. This particular object is highly unusual, and probably unique in a European archaeological context. There is nothing else like it that has survived, but its existence gives an important insight into what neolithic culture was like. It was found in Macedonia, and so the primary literature on it going to be in Macedonian, not an easy language for searches. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sole reference contains a couple of illustrations of this item among many others. There is no substantive discussion. No other references. I Googled and did not find any other references regarding this particular item.--Rpclod (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrations are not "the sole reference" - the illustrations are taken from the cited book in Macedonian, they are not the whole book. As for saying "illustrations of this item among many others", books/articles/papers/etc on archaeological subjects normally contain descriptions of other objects for comparison, so of course there are illustrations of other objects in that pdf excerpt - the fact that there are other objects to compare it to increases the notability and value of the object in the eyes of experts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian speakers - is this a museum exhibit brochure of the flute? http://www.kingmarkoland.com/Upload/Content/Documents/Praistoriska_topcesta_flejta.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vessel flute I find those who find this AfD laughable, themselves laughable. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be civil, please leave this discussion. Rather than posting personal insults, why not respond to the points I made? In case you did not notice, the "vessel flute" article is empty of content and is just a link page to other articles - so what is there to merge with? Or do you want to turn the "vessel flute" article into an article whose content is entirely about this object. Have you not noticed that an article about this object already exists, that article being the article this AfD is about! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably renaming) -- This is a particular artefact. Merging it to what is currently effectively a list article (with little content) and largely concerned with the Far East is wholly inappropriate. The article cites four references - an initial report and discussions of it. This is ample for a short article. Whether it is of Neolithic date may be controversial, due to the lack of an archaeological context, but I do not think that its existence is. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 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 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Devabhaktuni[edit]

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

Having doubts on the Academic Notability of this individiual due to lack of reliable sources and notable achievements/contributions other than a (seemingly?) prominent positions in 2 universities. Can't figure out if this page satisfies points 5 and 6 described here where i am open to discussions. You are welcome to challenge this deletion if you feel the page meets any other criteria . Sahil 13:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Sahil 13:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sahil 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) >

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does this have to do with Utah, User:SahilSahadevan? Just curious. Jinkinson talk to me 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi Jinkinson , My Bad . I have moved it to the Right sorted Page (Ohio), where the University of Toledo is located -- Sahil 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cites on GS are borderline for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

> Hi Xxanthippe . I beg to differ ; Prof#C1 states that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" . No such sources cited -- Sahil 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Take another look at WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Xxanthippe , Sorry ,I Dont get it . Could you help me go through the specific point which passes this article as a weak keep ? Thank you -- Sahil 07:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. As an WP:ACADEMIC, subject might be found notable based on his scholarly work but his profile indicates that his top paper has only received 301 citations. (In general, a significant paper is one that received over 1000 citations.) Perhaps it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this subject. Msnicki (talk) 15:07, 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, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing indicates that any criteria of WP:NACADEMICS is met.--Rpclod (talk) 17:35, 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations are short, and fails this and other criteria for WP:PROF; no noteworthy awards (other than internal teaching awards which are a dime a dozen), no prominent academic position or responsibility, and only full professor at a middling institution. Nothing to meet WP:GEN either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:44, 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 nomination withdrawn. Thank you to Gongshow for finding sources and tidying the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Faze[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, as tagged five years ago. Only source provided is an AllMusic profile. No substantive coverage found in WP:RS. Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage includes a New York Times review [13], a lengthy Birmingham News piece [14], a brief Allmusic bio [15] and review [16], and an A.V. Club write-up which described their album one of the "least essential" of 2001 [17]. There is enough material in my view to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 16:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, Gongshow. If someone could improve the article based on those, per WP:HEY, that would be great. (I would not be unwilling to withdraw my nomination as well.) --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 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, Mz7 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MUSIC, criteria 4. More sources have been added since the nomination and the nominator themselves indicated they'd be willing to widraw the nomination. -- Taketa (talk) 17:11, 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 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellenor Bland[edit]

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

This is a person who held a position as a member of a local council and ran unsuccessfully for higher office, and held very minor positions in a party structure. Nothing about her raises to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was a well-known British politician who was the subject of an international furor in 2006 after her anti-Pakistani racist writings became public. She passes WP:GNG based on extensive, in-depth coverage from worldwide major media outlets (and even some elsewhere), including (1) this from the Hindustan Times, (2) this from the Chicago Tribune, (3) this, (4) this and (5) this from The Times, (6) this and (7) this from The Guardian, (8) this from the BBC, (9) this from the Daily Mail (10) this from The Independent, (11) this from the London Evening Standard, (12) this from the Wiltshire Times, (13) this from the Daily Mirror, (14) this from the Orlando Sentinel, (15) this from Dawn in Pakistan, (16) this from The Scotsman, and (17) this from The Spectator. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient refs for her deeds. Keep the refs needed tag on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably infamous rather than famous but notable due to the media coverage during the racism allegations. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Depth of media coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. A Town council is only a Parish Council. However notorious and widely reported her views, her fame arises only from one incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No evidence of notability: neither as important politician, nor public attraction for any oother reason. Racist accident is irrelevant per WP:SINGLEEVENT Staszek Lem (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:SINGLEEVENT was not intended to apply in a situation like this. This is not a case where an individual played a small or peripheral role in a noteworthy event. That's where the guideline is intended to apply. This is a situation where Ms. Bland was herself the subject of note, based on her racist writings. This was not a minor, localized incident. It was a major controversy that drew international condemnation and attention in the world's leading publications. WP:SINGLEEVENT states: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" Here, there is no separate article on the "Ellenor Bland racism controversy," nor do I think there should be. The appropriate manner in which to deal with this notable subject is in the article on Bland. Deleting the topic altogether is whitewashing Wikipedia of a significant racist controversy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I intend to apply it like this. A minor politician is a racist. Big deal. Lots of closet racists there are. Suddenly it hits headlines. Lots of noise. Because of single accident, dirt digging starts. Still a single, however spread in time, event, with no major consequences for history or politics. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intent and desire to apply it in this manner are not what's relevant. The policy is what's relevant. The Ellenor Bland controversy was not, as you put it, not a "big deal." This was a major controversy that is part of an important topic. Deleting it would be a whitewash. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. you say it yourself: "controversy", i.e., single event. And my "not a big deal" is not about her. It is about all these local racists who go unnoticed by major media. This one was out of luck and got herself into a big deal. 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Staszek has now excised the article of the entire section dealing with the racism controversy. Talk about white-washing! Cbl62 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you to read our policy about bios of living persons careflly before jumping with accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There are many sources, but they are all relating to the same event. There is no other coverage. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic WP:BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLTICIAN, classic WP:BLP. Local councillor says/writes something stupid and/or a bit racist is a bit of WP:DOGBITESMAN story, and such stories are WP:ROUTINEly used by the press (in this case an unholy alliance of the British left-wing press and the Pakistani right-wing press) to stir up their readers into indignant frenzies as they know they'll get clicks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is indicative: her earlier uneventful and non-notable career is completely un-sourced, the racism allegations are extensively sourced and her suspension from the party directly relates to the racism allegations. Show me in-depth, significant coverage of her not prompted by that one event and we'll talk. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor politician who holds a role that wouldn't get her past WP:NPOL does not suddenly become appropriate for inclusion in an international encyclopedia just because a single incident in her career suddenly garners more coverage than usual, following which she drops back into uncovered obscurity. WP:BLP1E does apply in situations like this, actually — if she wasn't already notable enough for an article before her racist comments were publicized then she's not notable enough for an article because of them either. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 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 List of pizza chains of the United States. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Pizza[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not finding much coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Couldn't find a single reliable source covering the subject of this article. It's been tagged as completely unsourced since 2008, and should have been speedy deleted under (A7). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wondered whatever happened to that small chain. Delete as trivia. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unrefed with none found.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Mercurywoodrose: I see no justification for a speedy delete argument. The article meets none of the criteria for speedy deletion in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (shortcut wp:CSD). Having no references in the current article is not a Speedy argument. In fact it, on its own, is not even really a valid criticism of an article--it is fine for Wikipedia to have stub articles on noteworthy topics. I hope you take this as constructive criticism: please take time to familiarize yourself with wp:CSD. --do ncr am 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so why dont you call xenophrenic to task, it was his idea, i was just echoing it. I almost never propose a CSD, and would not have done so here w/o others pointing out no refs for 6 years.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sorry, i had not noticed xenophrenic's note about A7 criterion (no assertion of notability) possibly applying. I disagree that that criterion applied. Actually the recent article history shows many back-and-forth edits with xenophrenic removing a lot of material, and with editor Northamerica1000 restoring it at least partially. this version of the article showed considerably more content and context; i think notability is fairly clearly suggested in that version. Xenophrenic did in fact try to speedy delete it, but that was declined by Northamerica1000, properly IMO. --do ncr am 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Strong Keep", "Strong Delete", "Weak Keep", Weak Delete" are other vote expressions to consider. Those are standard vote types that are counted up in the automated review of editors' AFD participations (where can we see that for u or me, i am not sure, i have seen these linked from RFAs sometimes i think). --do ncr am 20:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small clarification regarding what "recent article history shows":

with Xenophrenic removing a lot of completely unsourced material, and with editor Northamerica1000 restoring it without supplying a single citation

The fact that the version to which you linked was completely unsourced (and dubious as well, after an in-depth search produced zero sourced corroboration of that content); that has been so since 2008; and has remained so after several removals with requests that sources be provided if reinstated -- shows it is indeed a candidate for speedy deletion, although one unfamiliar with the industry might argue not under (A7). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (changed from Weak Keep, changed from Delete). Not withstanding my disagreement with "Speedy Delete" vote above, the nomination seems sound. Thank you Northamerica1000 for performing wp:BEFORE. Also I searched in newspaper databases behind paywall and found no mentions at all in the Wall Street Journal (searched from about 1985 on) or in the New York Times (historical), and no recent coverage besides a trivial mention, out of a bigger database of national newspapers. So, it does seem not notable to me, unless someone comes up with some material. --do ncr am 18:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, I change from "Delete" to "Weak Keep" for now based on seeing earlier version of the article which seems more substantial. Specifically that it was a major chain, a signicant competitor to Chuck E. Cheese's, a surviving chain that ended up acquiring many of Planet Pizza's stores. With that much, though sources are not given, it seems to me that significant coverage at the time must have existed. My own search of national news coverage was not of historical coverage, besides for WSJ and NYT. The bankruptcy filing(s) would provide reliable coverage, for example. Also searching in LATimes history and other western papers would be of help. --do ncr am 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to continue your search for sources, or are you offering suggestions in the hope that others might take up the endeavor? I'll watchlist this page in anticipation of someone having better luck than I did (after searching business records, bankruptcy records and newspapers local to the alleged founding location: Cupertino / Santa Clara County). Frankly, after reading the Talk page discussions about fiction intentionally introduced at that article page, I'm even beginning to suspect a hoax article built on a believable premise. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article is not Kept, it would be better to redirect to List of pizza chains of the United States's section on defunct past chains, rather than to delete entirely. That way the history would remain available at the redirect, and if/when someone comes with more sources it could be restored properly. --do ncr am 22:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the list article should be acceptable. But probably not to the defunct section, as an actual non-notable, but still operating small chain exists: Planet Pizza. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on a link to the list article in general not to the specific section. The California-based Planet Pizza and the Connecticut-based one can both be listed.

About more searching, i asked over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#California historical news search (1980s-1990s) on Planet Pizza and the quick reply by John M Baker is negative. I asked for LATimes search, and he did that and more. Cupertino is not near LA, so i still think there can exist substantial coverage out there, but I am not finding it now. Done for now. --do ncr am 02:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all above. Problem with redirect is who would actually look for a Wikipedia article for that business? It's unnecessary. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of national animals[edit]

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

Most of the content is uncited and much of it is wrong; heck, some of it is unofficial, i.e. it includes animals which are not the national animal of the country in question. Some of the listings aren't even for nations. It violates WP:MOSFLAG. It's hard to patrol and unlikely to ever be reliable. Furthermore, the contents would likely be better off in each individual country, anyway; I claim there's no significant benefit to breaking it out and displaying it here. On the other hand, the pictures are nice. Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not a cleanup. Issues like this can easily be fixed and sourced correctly with a little hard work. We have other national lists too so there is no reason to delete this one. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay.--Dmol (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayJay - The nominator can fix it, WP:SOFIXIT applies. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are readably available, so notability is not an issue. Also, all of the issues raised can be fixed by editing, so deletion is not appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is useful. It just needs to be fixed. This is an example of WP:BB. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davey2010. Cmt: There are thousands of articles that should be deleted before this one. --Seduisant (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can be easily fixed. Indeed, we have a model on how to do a list of this kind in the form of List of national birds, which covers a very similar (indeed, overlapping) subject matter. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:01, 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-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars[edit]

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

Stars Wars is not a country. This topic is unwarranted and un-notable. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous secondary sources that discuss both the philosophy and religious aspects of the Star Wars Universe. The article itself lists the book Star Wars and Philosophy and there are other books: The Dharma of Star Wars, The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force, Star Wars Jesus, etc. In addition there has bee a good bit written on the mythological foundations of the Star Wars universe; see for instance Star Wars sources and analogues. Jediism is a real-world crossover of the Star Wars religious ideas with some political impact; see the Jedi census phenomenon. The topic seems highly notable. The article has a general source list, but it could obviously be expanded and better sourced. However, these problems are a surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not reasons for deletion. One may question whether philosophy and religion should get separate articles or a combined article; but this again is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but not for the nominating reason. While sources do discuss different aspects this topic, this article can't help but become a lot of SYNTH being cobbled together to make an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of sources in the further reading is a compelling argument against the assertion that this topic is non-notable. Any potential problems, such as synthesis, can be corrected through normal editing. Articles shouldn't be kept or deleted based on personal feelings about the subject matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, this will never progress beyond a stub. This is not even worthy of a merge. The entire article can be summarised in a sentence on the Star Wars article. Something like: "Religion in Star Wars includes aspects of Christianity ... and comments on ethics..." Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the massive amount of literature found in Google books. Plenty of scope here for expansion, especially on the links to Zoroastrianism. Some of those making "delete" arguments don't seem to have searched. Niteshift36 makes a valid point, but with care, a SYNTH-free article is quite possible. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are now several reliable references in the article, documenting links to several different religious concepts. I also note that the article was once much longer, but was stubbed down due to lack of references. -- 101.117.109.179 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous nominator withdrew, declaring "I deserve a trout" for not finding the large array of available sources. Faced with a much lesser task, of reading what the previous nominator had to say, this nominator still failed. What is next after trout? Anarchangel (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have more than enough sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 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. G12 j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMI-CB250[edit]

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

Stub article about a cluster bomb. The entire text in the article is ripped from the only source in the article (the manufacturer's own page about it: http://www.ordtech-industries.com/2products/Bomb_Cluster/Bomb_Cluster_CB.html ), apart from punctuation and "they" being changed to "it". CSD G12 might be applicable, but I chose to nominate the article for AfD since the text wasn't copied verbatim. Thomas.W ^talk 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G12. It does apply.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Food Talk India[edit]

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

Article seems to promotional to me. Just two sources, one does not even mention "Food Talk India", other just mentions it in passing. Google News search returns 0 hits [18], so does GoogleBooks search [19]. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indication of notability, promotional language. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:50, 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 Withdrawn. Me5000 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)[edit]

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

Previous debate closed as no consensus. Sources are either trivial, passing mentions or not about the mall and are not enough to meet WP:GNG.

Source 1 is a primary source
Source 2 contains one half of a sentence about the mall
Source 3 and 4 are just directory listings
Source 5 only contains one sentence about the mall
Source 6 and 7 are about a single store opening at the mall nothing about the mall itself
Source 8 and 9 talk about traffic around the mall and other places nothing actually about the mall itself
Source 10 probably the best source, but still doesn't say much about the mall itself
Source 11 about traffic around the mall area and other areas, nothing about the mall itself

I've searched using google for other sources and nothing else comes up except directory listings. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - The nom's previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Mall (Missouri) (2nd nomination) just ended on June 17 with absolutely no different argument offered for deletion with this one except for a couple of comments on additional sources about this topic. AfD is not a mechanism to be abused over sour grapes due to a previous recent outcome. I also see the nom created the first AfD which only ended in March. Instead of spending so much energy and editors' time to your deletion desire of this article, I'd advise using your time contributing content to articles and improving them. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This was created two hours and ten minutes after the close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 29#Columbia Mall (Missouri), which was also begun by the same editor. Nom conveniently ignores the search suggestions provided in the first AfD in claiming he can't find any sources. Nom was briefly blocked recently for edit warring to get this topic redirected to Columbia, MO. Nom was asked at the DRV to explain the pattern of creating mall stubs, mall AfDs, mall DRVs, participation in mall AfDs, and attempts to redirect mall articles; at the most recent DRV, but didn't answer. Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, for all the reasons stated above. I would close this myself, but was involved in the original AfD, thus feel a certain conflict of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 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. Also of note is that as of this close, the article has two references in it as inline citations. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King's Highway (ancient)[edit]

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

A thorough search yielded not a single source supporting the claims made in the article. Text is basically unchanged since the article was created in 2005. It was tagged unsourced in 2007. If anyone does manage to unearth a RS, that would be very nice. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There are many modern Kings' Highways, there's a "Darb al Malik", a ""Darb al Sultan"[20], there's one from Amman to Aqaba[21], but nothing ancient. Kleuske (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in Hebrew, at least, there is significant scholarly discussion of this and other related ancient Levantine highways. See, for example, the source given in the "Further reading" section of the Hebrew article: ארץ־ישראל בתקופת המקרא: גיאוגרפיה היסטורית‎‎ (search "דרך המלך‎‎"); also [22], etc.
Note: It is possible that "King's Highway" is not the conventional scholarly translation used in English, explaining the lack of sources. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For that matter, the source I cited has an English version as well: [23]. Aharoni does use "the King's Highway". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "It runs the length of Transjordan" and "may not be a special name for that route". Amman to Aqaba? It is mentioned above, we're looking at a "Kings Highway" from Egypt to the Euphrates. Kleuske (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google search finds many authoritative sources. For example: Lee, Jessica (18 Sep 2012). "Travelling the slow route to Petra". Road Trips. BBC. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014.; Gimlette, John (28 Mar 2012). "Jordan: the King's Highway to adventure and amazement". Travel. The Telegraph. Kent, UK: Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014.; "Touristic Sites". Kingdom of Jordan. Retrieved 7 Aug 2014..--Rpclod (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC-version o the "Kings Highway" is mentioned above as running from Amman to Aqaba, not from Egypt to the Euphrates as the article does. The rest are tourist oriented pieces and do not count as "authorative" in my book, especially when it is about "ancient traderoutes". Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Still unsourced. Sources that exist haven't been added. If there's consensus for deletion, I'd like the closing admin to add this to my collection of articles to rehab. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userify -- Apart from the Biblical quotation, this is unsourced. I strongly suspect that the interpretation of the quotation will be a matter of dispute. This is a subject that needs much more than traveller's tales and guidebooks; these hardly count as WP:RS. Which king is referred to in the title? The king of Edom or some greater king? The simple reading is that the Israelites wanted to pass through Edom along the main road, but the king of Edom would not let them. That implies nothing except that there was a main road across Edom. Where it stated and ended, and how much further it went is essentially a matter of speculation i.e. WP:OR. It may be that there are scholarly discussions of the question, in which case they should be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Needs references. I've posted a comment on WikiProject Judaism. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence it ever existed as one route. It looks like the other articles on other Wikipedias are copies of this one except [24] which is about a different road. CesareAngelotti - why do you think there was ever such a highway? Do you understand what we mean by WP:NOTABLE? It needs to have reliable third party sources discussing it so I think you haven't read our criteria for notability. Perhaps you will reconsider your !vote or justify it please by showing these sources. This isn't actually a vote, the closing Administrator will look at the policy and guideline based arguments and make a decision based on them, not a count of !votes. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you might realise, ancient routes abounded, and given their nature, adequate references are hard to come by unless you're an anthropologist or an expert on the subject matter. At a quick glance, I find hundreds of references to a highway named as such, but in order to attest to which particular path the sources refer to I'd have to spend hours reading those sources. That's why I support asking an expert. It may turn out to be of no relevance, or may be based on inaccurate information. We must err on the side of caution and take our time in determining the facts. There was such a highway (by name and region), there's no evidence to say there wasn't: what needs to be determined is the accuracy of the information relayed in the article. As for your administrative concerns, don't worry: I have spent years editing on Wikipedia. Regards, CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance you find hundreds of sources? Care to share a couple of them? After all, you are not the only wikipedian who can read. We might share the burden. Kleuske (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know I'm not the only one! A simple Scholar search returned thousands of articles. I don't have access to academic databases at the moment, so if you do you might add a great deal to the discussion. The articles' descriptions shed light to the fact that there indeed was such a road, althouth as I said I can't access the articles themselves. Thanks, CesareAngelotti (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... I've been over those and ended up with the above. There's more than one road called "Kings Highway", in the UK, the US, Australia and in Jordan. The first you can discard and the sources on the others don't match and none seem to support the article. Kleuske (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Comments:
1. Bear in mind that the amount of literature devoted to the Bible—secular as well as religious—is immense, and anything mentioned in the Bible is probably notable unless it is an obvious subtopic of something else.
2. "King's Highway" is indeed too vague a search term. I suggest searching "King's Highway" "Via Maris" or "דרך המלך" "דרך הים"‎ in Hebrew; sources that discuss one Levantine trade route will likely discuss its better-known fellow.
3. Here are the first few of the relevant-looking sources I've found by searching Google Scholar in Hebrew: [25] [26] [27]. I do not have access to any of these journals and I can only see the fragment Google shows when searching, but those excerpts seem to indicate the "King's Highway"'s significance. Note that one of these sources indicates that research on the ancient trade routes mentioned in the Bible, including this one, is based largely on the work of Nelson Glueck.
4. It is not surprising that the exact path of an ancient highway is debated and this does not make it less notable. For a source mentioning one of the disputed parts of the route, see [28]. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like there are scholarly sources out there, whether it's real or not, it appears to be notable. That said, it needs some of the cites mentioned here actually put in the article.... XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jstor search "King's way" egypt:
- " The term 'the king's way', which occurs in Assyrian as harr an sarri, is of a different kind" : [29]
- "...advanced southward in Trans-Jordan along the 'King's Way'; they passed the region of Bashan (Ashteroth-Karnaim),G ilead (Ham), Moab12 (Shaveh-Kiriathaim), and Mount Seir and reached El-Paran, i.e. El (ath) on the edge of the wilderness of Paran.
- B. THE 'KING'S WAY' IN THE TABULA PEUTINGERIANA" [30]
- "In this case the lower field of the palette records Narmer's domination of the two main highways between Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia: the 'sea road and the 'king's way'. The former cuts its way through the most fortified part of Palestine,85 the latter through the less inhabited and much less fortified plateau of Trans-Jordan.[31]
- "..the increasing Hasmonean threat to take over compeletely the 'King's Way,' led Yannai, after a short time, to a direct military confrontation with Petra's rulers." [32]
- ". Prior to the 16th century, the pilgrims appear to have used a number of routes, most of which ran further west, following the ancient King’s Highway or Via Nova Traiana." [33]...
- " Outline map of the North and Central Negev, showing prominent geographical features referred to in this article. The dotted lines follow the courses of dry stream beds or wadis, while the double dotted lines indicate-the courses of the King's Highway and the Darb es-Sultani. The course of the latter from the Wadi Aravah east is only the most probable of several possible routes. " [34]
- book (not purely academic but Uof Michigan press. trespassers william (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: All excellent sources, except possibly the first (read ḫarran šarri), which refers to Mesopotamian highway that passed through the Balikh and Khabur valleys [35] though one source says that ḫarran šarri is the King's Highway of the Bible [36] (unless, somehow, this is not a contradiction?). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment If it's the Via Traiana Nova than we have two articles on it. Britannica suggests it is.[37] - we'd need to merge the two articles, not simply keep both. But other sources say the Via Traiana Nova was build by the Romans.[38] Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't appreciate the amount and complexity of extant knowledge in the field. From I quickly gathered, researches identify a road that has been used in prehistory and protohistory, and written about by early civilizations. Then came the Romans and paved a good part of it, incorporating it ito their official Roman roads system with milestones and the like. This is essentialy a separate thing. Their road was kept in use long after they were gone, but incorporated into newer road systems. Maybe this even deserve a third article.
        
        It is enraging to see a good, encompassing, wikilinked article, contributed in whole by a serious user, who gave up due to deletions, several years ago, almost razed because it doesn't have a couple of footnotes. Way to go with the sermons. trespassers william (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you aware of assume good faith? Or WP:VERIFY? Instead of attacking other editors why not work on the article? You've found sources, add them, please? And the statement that some wars were "probably were at least partly over control of the Highway." - that looks like the editor's speculation. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 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 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Cobbs[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the article as it stands, fails WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. After watching last year's Oscar winner for best documentary, I have a soft spot for session singers, but her online presence is scanty.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I found a mention in the BBC but we really need multiple in-depth independent nontrivial reliable sources as per the GNG. Probably a great singer; would be great to keep her in Wikipedia but we need the sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 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) 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above - non notable vocalist--–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:44, 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 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Leil - Leila Sohrab[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't yield positive results in terms of reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiography. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly even speedy delete per A7. Non-notable musician with nothing in the way of reliable sources to prove the subject's notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure why this was not a db-a7... clearly not notable... no refs either --Jersey92 (talk) 02:35, 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. Will userfy on request. Deor (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Dangerous Cure[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Non-notable movie being promoted by its creator. (I am glad that their effects budget was large enough to allow the inside of a disk drive to stand for technology that spawns an epidemic.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy a new article on a newer indie film that is only now beginning to get independent coverage. Let its author have it back for continued work as it approaches the requirements set by WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF. CesareAngelotti (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as the film is completed and has screened, WP:NFF does not apply. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient significant coverage for a new film, maybe it is WP:TOOSOON, or maybe it is not worth the candle. Either way, delete for now. Come back if it garners significant coverage or notable awards. --Bejnar (talk) 13:29, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Honey[edit]

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

I don't know how to check his citation count, but this professor's publications look a bit too skimpy (in the Ohio U. listing) and there's nothing in the Honors section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not going to weight in on this article being deleted, but this link [39] shows about the level of his citation. His Southern Garden Society book was only published a little over a year ago, so it might yet come to be more cited, and his translations of a few major Chinese scholarly works might be of some note. One think I remain unsure of is if there might be references to him in sources in Chinese. His BYU bio mentions among other things his composing an 80-line poem about the history of the activities of the Palace Museum, in Chinese, presented at a conference at the Palace Museum. I'm not sure if he would get notice is Chinese publications, but that is one possibility.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS h-index of 5. Not much case for WP:Prof#C1. Looks like a Too Early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 12:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to exceed the typical professor. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above comments, though even WP:TOOSOON is unlikely as some of the work has failed to make a substantial impact since coming out in the 1990s.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat shows very average holdings of his 3 books. Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Godiva (band). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Under 666[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:NALBUM JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Godiva (band), fails WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. It is verified however. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 12:54, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Pilla[edit]

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

Non notable musician, notability not inherited. Not exactly sure why PROD was declined, explanation given had nothing to do with the PROD tag. Safiel (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy per A7. I tagged it as such, giving an explanation, but I guess not everyone agrees with my definition of "no credible claim of significance or importance". The full reasoning here: Note that notability is not inherited - Pilla doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere independently, just passing mentions in bios of other musicians. Ansh666 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 12:54, 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vringo[edit]

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

I proposed this article be deleted for appearing like an advertisement on July 22. There was no objection to the proposed deletion for 7 days but an administrator did not delete the article. Perhaps this deserves more discussion. Thank you for your input. --Xwarrior3721 (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was started with just the text above, untemplated, and added to the log page from a week ago. I've reformatted it with the proper template. This has been done as a courtesy, and I'll officially stay out of the discussion itself, other than to note that three earlier attempts to create an article on this company were A7/G11 speedied back in 2008. --Finngall ^talk 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Being written as an advertisement is not in and of itself sufficient reason for deletion (and I don't see that as too much of an issue here anyway). There are a sufficient number of WP:RS to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Looks like a keeper. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:01, 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) @ 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Lesser Cartographies. I have added {{advert}} to the article so the complaint can be dealt with by the article's editors. ~KvnG 03:32, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give A Day Global[edit]

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

nonnotable organization, no refs found in search Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe someday this organization will be notable, but it certainly isn't now. It was formed only a year or so ago, by three people in San Francisto who thought it sounded like a good idea; they don't even have nonprofit status yet. Absolutely no outside sources have taken note of them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hayfield[edit]

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

Previous deletion discussion resulted in no consensus with weak arguments IMO. Non-notable author fails WP:BIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Bill Birnes into one joint article. I think enough of both their notabilities is tied to their being joint creators of the UFO Magazine that that is what should be focused on here. It would help if her husband was named in this article, but that really would lead to both their articles overlapping a lot, so I think it would be best if we merged them to one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable author. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:55, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitthal Patil (Choreographer)[edit]

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

This may be a case of wp:autobiography. The same editor uploaded a high-resolution photo of the subject (File:Vitthal Patil - Choreographer - Actor - Director.jpeg) that cannot be found on the internet using Google image search. This leads me to the conclusion that the author is the subject himself, or somebody closely connected to him. The problem with the article is the wp:notability. There are four references: one to Facebook, one to the IMDb (not a reliable source per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb), one to a YouTube trailer that does not mention the subject, and one to a page that also does not mention the subject. So, the article is basically unsourced. I tried Google general search and Google books, and there are some hits, but nothing very convincing. This is the only reliable-looking source I found. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • Fails WP:verifiability and WP:notability. The article relying mainly on the social and self published sources. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the usual sources, I gave Highbeam a shot, and had no luck improving the referencing here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:34, 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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahira Barry[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (constabulary) @ 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes NMODEL. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's sources can be of higher quality, but this model passes GNG with non-trivial coverage in the Irish press. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 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 15:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Pouliot[edit]

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

The article has numerous issues, particularly notability per WP:N (the article has been tagged orphaned since Jan 2011). There also appears to be a conflict of interest, as the article appears to be about the main contributor (note the second section on the talk page, headed 'Yannick Pouliot has many accomplishments')) Amkilpatrick (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest looking at his publications to see if he meets WP:ACADEMICS. You can see his Google Scholar profile here. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—(ec) Google scholar results show four highly-cited papers and an h-index of 14, which is respectable but a little low for WP:ACADEMIC. His company is non-notable (and likely moribund), so there won't be notability via his being CEO. Not seeing anything else. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:PROF test, unable to find independent sources demonstrating significant impact. benmoore 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert_Poggio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Albert Poggio

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

Clear vanity article with most of the text added by the subject, though well-sourced, not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article Uberphail (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to post autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's been the UK Representative of the Government of Gibraltar since 1988. The subject has an OBE which isn't insignicant but crucially has an entry in Who's Who; [40]. This means he's been judged as notable by the experts at Oxford University Press. I wish people would check the obvious places WP:BEFORE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So far as I can tell, the nominator is under a mizapprehension - the profile and interests of the main contributor to the article, who obviously has some interest in Gibraltar but whose main interest seems to be in Brazilian articles on Portuguese Wikipedia, simply don't match those of the subject of the article, a Gibraltarian born in Northern Ireland and who is a long-term British resident. The article itself seems reliably referenced, and while the subject is fairly obviously only modestly notable in Britain, he is equally obviously highly notable in Gibraltar. This is not entirely surprising - the position of representative of a colony to its colonising power tends to be an influential one back in the colony, and particularly when, as in this case, the representative has been in post for 25 years. PWilkinson (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The points made by Barney and PWilkinson are overwhelmingly strong. To them I would add that there appears to be significant coverage of the subject and his position, such as [41]. There are one or two peacocky sentences in the article that should be fixed, but nothing unsalvageable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 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. Deor (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Simon Leiter[edit]

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

Nothing in this article explains why he is notable enough for a WP Article. Lots of rabbi's and priest write teachings - doesn't make them all notable Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing online indicates notability either. --Dmol (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having checked Hebrew sources, I can confirm that Leiter and his book, Yalkut Hadash, are almost never mentioned in rabbinical literature. While his son's obituary refers to him as the 'famous' Rabbi Shimon Leiter, I can't find any indication of his fame. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article does not establish notability, and there seem to be no WP:RS that would. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a WP:N& WP:V author of rabbinic literature such as his work "Sefer Yalkut Chadash" as noted online and still published and available [42] (Amazon); [43] (Ebay). This is only a {{Rabbi-stub}} & {{Bio-stub}}. Article was only created a couple of weeks ago. Please note WP:CHANCE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH as the article is being improved. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By which criterion of WP:NAUTHOR was Leiter notable for his book? My searches indicate that Yalkut Chadash is utterly obscure: there are less than a dozen distinct mentions of Yalkut Chadash in HebrewBooks and Otzar HaHochma—which, as you surely know, are very inclusive databases of rabbinical literature—and most refer to the same passage, a Hasidic tale about the Rebbe of Tolne. (The fact that Yalkut Chadash is sold on Amazon and eBay reflects the popularity, among some Judaica collectors, of 'early' American rabbinic works.)
  The fact that the book is a Yalkut (roughly: an anthology) only counts against its notability, since Likkutim/Yalkutim are commonplace and contain little original material by definition. Your linking to Yalkut is deceptive, as Yalkut Chadash's notability does not approach that of any of the other works listed there; it was added to the list by the same user who created Rabbi Simon Leiter. (In my opinion, article Yalkut is completely invalid as a partial title match that could potentially be extended to over a hundred entries. It should redirect to Yalkut Shimoni, the only Yalkut referred to as "Yalkut" alone.)
  Finally, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is not a reason to keep; it is a reason to be patient about an article's state. Notability does not usually increase with the passing of time. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@הסרפד: Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, per WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as well as WP:SCHOLAR in this case in the field of Torah scholarship. Also, in years gone by, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [44] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: ".. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. As for the inline/internal link to Yalkut it is legitimate in the context and at this time in order to illustrate what the name is about, it is obviously not what the work Sefer Yalkut Chadash is about per se. Methinks you are setting a very high bar for what can be included on WP by ignoring WP:NOTPAPER and WP:BEBOLD that are essential for building up WP as an encyclopedia and not tearing it down if it does not meet your personal exceedingly high standards given your predilection for voting to delete almost all suggestions that are posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, while I function in the mode of Meta:Inclusionism. Thanks, and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not dwell on the differences in our ideas of notability; though you exaggerate my deletionism a bit, we obviously disagree often, but I think my concept of notability is somewhat closer to the general Wikipedia community's than yours.
However, it is clear that you ignored the first part of what I wrote above: I demonstrated that Leiter was not notable in his own field—rabbinical literature! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC, despite IZAK's claim. Verifiable, not notable, pernom.. --Bejnar (talk) 13:33, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R.Panchavarnam[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor. Even his books are self published Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nomination! I am afraid to see unnecessary articles among the necessary articles form South India. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet NPOL or GNG. Written in a very promotional tone as well with peacock words. Cowlibob (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES; we have almost always deleted articles of county executives and their equivalents. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 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 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MC Shaq[edit]

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

No claims seem to meet notability requirements for musicians. The sources do not meet the General notability guidelines. At best one may be independent and reliable, but even that is not clear. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near WP:MUSIC.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to lack sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 17:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sadly Bengali/Bangladeshi musician coverage is not well accessible from the internet. MC Shaq is arguably the pioneer of HipHop/Rap/Gangster music in Bangladesh and his crew Deshi MCs made a huge participation in the industry until the crew parted due to internal feud. MC Shaq, and his former fellow crew Skibkhan have enough coverage in media, as well as Deshi MC's have several mainstream albums, TV and radio presence. MC Shaq meets WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1,2,4,5, 7, 12. This article needs improvement both in content and sources. Allow original contributors and other editors to improve. --» nafSadh did say 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for more input per User:Nafsadh's !vote above

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NMUSIC. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG fails WP:NMUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 13:34, 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 speedy deleted by Shirik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G5. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Casey Calvert[edit]

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

Sad but not notable death. Even the dead person does not have his own article so a redirect is not possible. Some info could go to the band's article, but ultimately this article does not belong. Dmol (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The death is not particularly noteworthy in this case. Any note given to it in the media comes from the notability of the person that died. Had this happened to a regular person it would not have any media attention. -- Taketa (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This was a copy-paste split by a sock of a user who has done splits like this before. Redirect to the band and semi-protect as Jin has a habit of returning over and over again. I've restored the main band article to the version before the split. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED WORLD TOUR[edit]

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

"The tour dates are yet to be announced." I can't find any reliable sources. —teb728 t c 07:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be speedied per WP:A3. It looks like an ad, and is an unsourced claim of future events.Forbidden User (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A3 is for articles with no content at all; this one has about 150 words. You probably meant something other than A3, but I can't guess what. —teb728 t c 07:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER ...William 14:52, 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 speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of motels[edit]

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

This is a misdirected article that doesn't serve anyone's needs. With less than 40 entries, and a title that does nothing to define it's usefulness, I can see no point in it's existence. BTW, 2 of it's entries are the exact same entity. I do not know of the policy to cite for this AfD request, but when reasonable people can agree, it is consensus and do we really need a policy? A list better served as a category, or possibly a better defined list with a more useful title? John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This fully qualifies for a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Motels and subcategories therein. The list also qualifies for an article per WP:LISTPURP as a functional and useful navigation aid to various Wikipedia articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - with hopes of collaboration on a more usable delineation of this subject. John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 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. Same result as last AfD. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reframe It[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Quoting from WP:NSOFT:

QUOTE In addition, although notability is not temporary, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.
Further nomination comment That seems to be the situation here, there was a burst of coverage in mostly technical sources, along with a mention in the New York Times, after which this software faded into obscurity, with the company eventually failing completely. I don't think true notability was ever achieved. Safiel (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site is pretty much dead at this point, and does not appear to be notable enough to merit an article. Also, given that the project is dead, I don't see it meeting WP:NOTABLE in the future. Jab843 (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 12:41, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayomi Vithanage.[edit]

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

Judging by what the article currently contains, seems to be of questionable notability. Article appears to have been written by subject. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 04:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some of the facts stated can't be substantiated. Claims to have participated at Miss Intercontinental 2013 but her name isn't in the list Gbawden (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to the article on Miss Intercontinental 2013 the Sri Lanka entrant was Simerene Rabot. Dan arndt (talk) 04:21, 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 speedy deleted by User:Tom harrison per CSD G7, "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey A. Richards[edit]

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

I created this page by mistake, a friend of mine on wikipedia suggested I nominate it for deletion to remove the article because of notability concerns. EarthWindAndPeaceYall (talk) 04:16, 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. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialist titles of honour[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, it's a case of WP:LISTCRUFT -- an indiscriminate collection of information. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for having too vague a criterion. What the heck is a socialist title of honour? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 12:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary source is provided which says a "socialist title of honour" is a notable thing. BayShrimp (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the other article too, for much the same reason. The information can be given in cult of personality and in the articles on each person and party. (The honorary titles can be in each person's article, and should be. The claim that the Labour Party (Norway) is a cult of personality, if that is a notable claim, should be included in its article.) No overall notability has been indicated by secondary sources. BayShrimp (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ [See below.] First of all, WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. The article is a WP:STUB (even equipped with {{Expand list}}) and, by no means, written in WP:STONE. For instance, it's not settled yet whether it should be sorted by term or continent and country. Even the article's title is open for changes. Regarding notability: The list is double-covered by two significant fields of knowledge: communist propaganda and cult of personality, including (but not limited to) North Korea's cult of personality, Stalin's cult of personality, and Nicolae Ceaușescu's cult of personality. Thus, the article is notable. (We should avoid a banal word-to-word comparison when interpreting WP:GNG, like User:Tchaliburton and User:Clarityfiend intend to do.) However, I may also agree to a solution where this article is reduced to a mere WP:DISAMBIG, linking to independent articles and article sections like Dear Leader. My basic intention with the article is to gather this type of titles in a way that allows external Wikipedia users easy access to the information concerned. In other words, it is less important how this list is organised. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding notability: The list is double-covered by two significant fields of knowledge: communist propaganda and cult of personality, including (but not limited to) North Korea's cult of personality, Stalin's cult of personality, and Nicolae Ceaușescu's cult of personality." This sounds too much like original research. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not cite the next sentence? '(We should avoid a banal word-to-word comparison when interpreting WP:GNG, like User:Tchaliburton and User:Clarityfiend intend to do.)' I am not keen on discussing with cherry pickers. Please contribute to keeping the debate clean and honest. Otherwise, you need to explain why you believe it is WP:ORIGINAL. Are you attacking the article via the title? Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the next sentence had nothing to do with my comment. The reason it's original research is because you're synthesizing information from various sources to put forward new ideas. Searching for "socialist titles of honour" yields one result: your article. See WP:MADEUP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchaliburton (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A poorly chosen title is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic—titles as a part of socialist cults of personality—is broadely known, not least via news and literature concerning North Korea, but also within history concerning several socialist states and parties. Anyway, I recognise your concerns, so I have created a new, improved, and descriptive (i.e. non-normative) title: Titles related to socialist cults of personality. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditioned delete:~~ [See below.] I have created a new, improved article with a ditto title: Titles related to socialist cults of personality. I support a delete of List of socialist titles of honour in favour of the new article, whose title is fully supported by a notable topic: cults of personality related to socialist propaganda. PS. I believe User:Tchaliburton has a political agenda. WP:NOTCENSORED. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is my political agenda, Mr Ellingsen himself? Tchaliburton (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sorry for being so indecisive. After discovering the article List of titles used by dictators a moment ago, I've changed my mind again. Instead of Titles related to socialist cults of personality, as suggested above, I suggest the article title List of titles used by socialist leaders, which is far better than the two previous. This means that I support the deletion of List of socialist titles of honour. NB. My vote does not concern the other article, Titles related to socialist cults of personality alias List of titles used by socialist leaders. Mr Ellingsen himself (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just crude propaganda, an attempt to connect Norway's Labour Party leaders with Hitler, Mussolini and Kim Jong Il. TFD (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Titles related to socialist cults of personality and List of socialist titles of honour. The articles are an attempt by User:Mr Ellingsen himself to equate the Labour Party of Norway with Hitler and Kim Jong-un. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following related article because it has the same problems:

Delete for a combination of WP:OR (no reliable sources discussing this a s a "thing" and a clear attempt to push a particular POV equating democratic socialism with Nazism. Keresaspa (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic, impossible to create enough content for an article, fringe synthesis. Provides about as solid a basis as a shack ready to crumble. --Pudeo ' 03:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge with List of titles used by socialist leaders. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles used by socialist leaders was a third article created by User:Mr Ellingsen himself in an attempt to push his POV of equating the Labour Party in Norway to fascism. All three articles should be deleted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DElete them all -- It is totally inappropriate to compare Norway (a democracy) with fascist regimes, whether of the right (Nazi) or left (communist). While the ideology of the right and left may (possibly) be different, the effect is similar - a police state. I regard the inclusion of Norway as an ATTACK article. I do not know what the implication of "land-mother" or "land-father" may be, but I feel sure that it is quite differnet from il duce and the like. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including the baloney List of titles used by socialist leaders. Mr. Ellingsen can fight his norwegian battles elsewhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it's not clear, I am also formally nominating the following related pages because they have the same problems and appear to be the author's attempt to circumvent this likely deletion:

Delete all. These are totally random - equating Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Labor unionism, and Whatever the hell is Juche into one grouping is the very picture of a bad list. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list doesn't make sense, most continents are missing. Reawaken (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note ~~that links to~~ the parallel AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titles related to socialist cults of personality) ~~on the article's page and on AfD for August 7, have been buried by some sort of naming discrepancy and must be manually selected.~~ Anarchangel (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I fixed it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 12:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS. Two sources are cited, and they indicate that she has not competed in a WTA main draw, and her ITF prize was less than $50,000. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines states a player as notable if:

The player has competed in the main draw in one of these higher level professional tournaments: Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships)

And states that it applies equally to singles and doubles players. She has played the 2014 Citi Open which is a WTA International event. Keroks (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose @Magnolia677: it appears that you have overlooked the 2014 Citi Open, as Keroks has pointed out. Wong made her debut appearance there on the WTA Tour just recently which means she is notable per project standards. Here is the drawsheet of said tournament. Jared Preston (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I'll add that info to her references on the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. And thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Fundraising[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP . Vast majority of sources are explicitly on the org's own website or founders personal website.

[45] and [46] both written by the founder as well.

Won two industry level awards.

In my WP:BEFORE the ONLY WP:RS I came across [47] and [48] which appears to be the only reliable source covering the company, which is accusing the multiple-company organization of graft and corruption. Unsurprisingly that source is not used in the article! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gene93k, I have read through your points made above though i don't believe this falls under the criteria of a deletion tag. It is stated that this should only be the case if the page is beyond repair, which this is not.

I Have also made some notes on the talk page but also wanted to put forward some notes here. The main point you mentioned above was that the vast majority of sources are of the org's own website or the website site, though this is not and has not been the case. At the time of the deletion tag being added there were 5 of the 14 references being from primary sources. This was not the vast majority though i have taken on board your feedback to improve the page and will continue to do so. The page has many references that are not included in the above such as The Guardian [49] Katrinamoris2014 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Gaijin42, I made the comments above, Gene93k is just adding some sorting information to the deletion discussion.

There are currently 11 sources used in the article

1 & 2 tonycharalambides.com (same link)
3 listenfundraising
4 written by tony charalambides
5 Guardian written by Tony Charalmbides
6 PR website just saying go listen on the org's website
7 written by tony
8 written by tony ( same as #5)
9 same as #4
10 & 11 minor industry awards

Hi Gaijin42, I have now removed the primary sources 1, 2 and 3 (Tony Charalambides website and the companies website). I will continue to work on building references from third party credible sources. However, the page as it stands is not worthy of deletion. The article reads neutrally without a bias point of view, all content is factual and is in no way promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinamoris2014 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires independent sources to demonstrate notability the above do not show that. Nor does using sources tightly coupled with the topic help WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:16, 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 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 13:37, 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) czar ♔ 04:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Stone[edit]

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

No reliable references available to demonstrate notability; fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I have no reason to doubt that the nominator complied with WP:BEFORE, I do wonder how extensive their effort was. Admittedly, the kind of reviews needed to show a thirty-year old book's notability are often old enough to be either entirely offline or only showing up as almost invisible snippets on a GBooks search, but in this case, the second result in a GBooks search using the book's title and author's surname is an academic work which discusses the book in detail. The other results I looked at within the GBooks search weren't as conclusive - but they included entries in bibliographic guides for librarians (reliable but fairly short and possibly not selective enough), a passing mention in a literary encyclopedia (where even a mention is almost certainly based on reliable sources), and a number of older tantalising snippets, which I suspect - but can't prove - would fully establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Basic check shows the novel was reviewed in Locus #327, a clear signal of notability for works in its genre. Amazon sales page quotes at some length from a favorable review in School Library Journal. I strongly doubt that the nominator complied with WP:BEFORE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with O. R. Melling. The author barely has notability (probably doesn't), and a Google search with the word "review" mostly brings up self-publishing sites (eg. GoodReads) and amazon.com. The rest are blogs from what appear to be fans. No notable reviewer or critic seems to even know this books exists. I don't see any news sites, lists, awards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 01:11, 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 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added more sources to the article. The book was shortlisted for the Ruth Schwartz Children's Book Award; it has received coverage in the Ottawa Citizen and The Globe and Mail, among others. I also see, from my library's database, that it received reviews in Publishers Weekly 231 21 (May 29, 1987): 79; in CM : Canadian Materials for Schools and Libraries 14 6 (Nov 1986): 270; in Quill & Quire 52 10 (Oct 1986): 20; Books in Canada 15 9 (Dec 1986): 18; and in Canadian Children's Literature (1987): 71–72. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:57, 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. There's not an overwhelming consensus here, but the weight of the arguments seem enough to call this delete. An argument was made that, As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest.. If that turns out to be true, then I suspect sufficient additional references will surface to establish WP:N, and the article can be re-created at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(14825) Fieber-Beyer[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant studies on this object, not in a catalogue of note, not discovered before 1850, and not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #1: Yes, the asteroid is not visible to the naked eye - in fact, no asteroid is. Criteria #2: The asteroid is listed in many significant databases including the external links provided within the article. To date the asteroid has been observed 713 times, for verification please see the IAU link in the external links in the article. Amateur astronomers can and frequently do use these publicly available databases to observe asteroids and gather photometric data to define the rotational period and shape models of asteroids lacking these parameters. Criteria #3: The asteroid has just been named after a disabled American astronomer within the last month who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space in which (14825) Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites, she was interviewed and explicitly stated this - the link to the newspaper interview is listed in the references. The MPC citation for the naming of the asteroid is listed in the references as well as two published new articles. The page was created to document findings of the past, present, and future study of asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer as they become newly available. The existing information has been incorporated and new information will be updated regularly. Criteria #4: It is undisputed that the discovery did not take place before 1850. Therefore, notability is met for criteria #2 and #3. SKFB (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

I'm with StringTheory11 on this one, the article should be deep sixed.

Criteria 2 fails because, while it may be of interest to amateur astronomers, it has not been given a designation on any relevant catalog. Also, just because it's been observed a few hundred times doesn't make it notable. WP:NASTRO also makes a mention of not duplicating lists just for listing sake - if it's in IAU and others, why repeat it here?
Criteria 3 fails (in my mind) because I was unable to find a single peer-reviewed article where this asteroid was the main focus (or ANY focus). Also, Fieber-Beyer had not (as of the time of the writing of the article) actually viewed the asteroid herself, let alone published work on it.

I was going to suggest it gets put on the list of notable asteroids in the asteroid belt, but I don't know if it even would fit there... Primefac (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted the asteroid is noted on a few different Wikipedia pages and the stub created appends these listings as well. For example, on Edward_L._G._Bowell all 572 of his discovered asteroids are listed. Each that has a given name has a stub attached to it, while the others are just listed with their numbered designations. The stub for (14825) Fieber-Beyer has external links, citations, news articles, etc. much more so than a majority of the objects in that listing. A great many amateur astronomers do follow Bowell's astronomical works and by visiting his page and clicking on each asteroid one can clearly see the breadth of Bowell's contributions in astronomy and inspire others to do the same. Professionals also seek out Bowell and his asteroid finds. The asteroid is also listed in List_of_minor_planets_named_after_people. As of April 15, 2014, the IAU Minor Planet Center reported orbits for 639,091 minor planets, of which 393,347 are numbered minor planets, and 18,504 are named minor planets (IAU Minor Planet Center: http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html). Only 5,954 light curves (rotation rates are derived from this) have been determined as of February 28, 2014 (http://www.minorplanet.info/lightcurvedatabase.html). The majority of these can be attributed to amateur astronomers. As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest. Fieber-Beyer has an extensive publishing history in peer-reviewed journals i.e. Icarus_(journal), Meteoritics_&_Planetary_Science, Astronomy_and_Astrophysics, and regularly archives spectral data on the NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node. Removing the stub is a disservice to the planetary science community, both amateur and professional. SKFB (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Even if an asteroid has a light curve, this does not constitute significant coverage per NASTRO or the WP:GNG, considering the sheer number that have them, while NASTRO explicitly states that naming is not a reason for notability. Sure, the Edward Bowell article you mentioned above may link to stubs, but those should be redirected too; it doesn't matter that other stuff exists. Sure, if Fieber-Beyer gets a Wikipedia page (which I currently have no opinion on as I have not researched that issue), then a note about the asteroid should be included there, but as I mentioned, that doesn't immediately make the asteroid notable per the guideline. As for the journals, can you provide some links to examples of the peer-reviewed sources that are present in these journals? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5,954 asteroids with lightcurves do not constitute "sheer number" considering there are 639091 minor planets. The asteroids with lightcurves make up 0.009% of the population. That's less than 1% of minor planets having a lightcurve. It seems we have come to a stalemate on notability. As far as Fieber-Beyer's publications, she has several.^{[P 1]}^{[P 2]}^{[P 3]}^{[P 4]}^{[P 5]}^{[P 6]}^{[P 7]}^{[P 8]}^{[P 9]}^{[P 10]}^{[P 11]}^{[P 12]}^{[P 13]}^{[P 14]}^{[P 15]} These are just a few of the thirty plus peer-reviewed articles I located for Fieber-Beyer's research which is centralized in the region of space (14825) is located. It is a target body for her research. SKFB (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

That percent is wrong; doing the arithmetic is is 0.9% that have light curves, not 0.009%, quite a significant difference. 0.9% of over 600000 is still quite a large number. Looking at the sources, they again only mention the asteroid in passing or as a comparison, and do not go in-depth on it, which is required for significant coverage. Clearly not evidence of notability, and instead evidence that there does not appear to be significant coverage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:01, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,0.9% is correct. That is still less than 1% of the total number of asteroids having a lightcurve. It is not a large number, that is a minute number. Criteria #2 and #3 are met. The asteroid is listed in many significant databases, has been observed 713 times, and is of interest to amateur astronomers. Furthermore, the asteroid was named after a disabled American astronomer who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space where asteroid (14825)Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites. Citations regarding this have been listed in the article. SKFB (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Just a note, as of today there are now 646094 minor planets, so that would make the 0.9% even much more less than 1% ^{[P 16]} Also, CalSky is ANOTHER catalog of significance to astronomers amateur and professional further solidifying criteria #2 being met. The citation provided links to asteroids of the 14000s. If you click on 14825 Fieber-Beyer you can generate the ephemerides of (14825), as well as get a graph that reveals when asteroid (14825) will be visible or calculate the date of closest approach or opposition. CalSky is used worldwide by amateur and professionals.SKFB (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

Found a reference specifically stating when asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer will be spectroscopically studied providing even more detailed knowledge about this minor planet. A line was added in the article and the citation sourced on the article page (14825) Fieber-Beyer. SKFB (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB[reply]

We have already established that this asteroid does not pass criterion #2, since it is not in the Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues, and is in no catalogue besides the minor planet catalogue, which contains every single minor planet. CalSky is not a catalogue; it's simply a calculator. 0.9% may seem like a lot by percentages, but we have to remember that 0.9% of over 500000 is still a huge humber, around 5000. Criteria #3 is not met because every link you provided does not constitude significant coverage; but again constitudes simply passing mentions in the article, which clearly is not enough for the WP:GNG, and thus is not enough for WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PDSS..199.....F
^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511002235
^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511000935
^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510004811
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhDT.......134F
^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1405.3970M
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010M%26PSA..73.5122F
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014LPI....45.1428F
^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PDSS..146.....F
^ http://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V1.0
^ http://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V2.0
^ http://www.calsky.com/observer/dataminor.cgi?page=14

Delete. In terms of its representation in the scientific literature, this clearly fails WP:NASTRO. We do have two newspaper articles about its naming, but they're not really different from each other in what aspect of the subject they cover, and they're both very local. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming, which might be irrelevant for WP:NASTRO but surely are relevant for WP:GNG. Add to this that there is a lightcurve, and thus evidence of academic interest, and we have a case for notability (That a lot of asteroids have light curves is irrelevant - notable does not mean unique).--cyclopia ^speak! 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues are for star, nebula, and galaxies, not asteroids. The IAU's Minor Planet Catalog (Minor_Planet_Center) and NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node are the go-to for asteroids. It does meet criterias #2 and #3. Also, found a 4th independent source regarding the naming and future study of the asteroid [50]— Preceding unsigned comment added by SKFB (talk • contribs) 14:41, 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 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletet yes, multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming in local papers due to press release, but no significant coverage. It maybe WP:TOOSOON, if the claims about future study come to fruition. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 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. The article is therefore kept by default. Sandstein 09:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Yongfu[edit]

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

Third recreation of an article that has already been G11-speedied twice since its first creation on July 2; in light of that I felt it better to go the AFD route instead of speedying it a third time. The problem here is that the article is essentially a prosified version of a résumé, rather than a properly encyclopedic article about him — and while it does cite reliable sources, every last one of them simply mentions his name briefly within coverage of other topics and thus fails to constitute sufficiently substantive coverage of him (as in the kind where he is the subject). The sources would support an article about the company he leads, in which his name could appear unlinked, but they do not support a standalone biography of him. So it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sorry, but have you tried to find sources before your nomination, nominator? I can find quite a few. For example [51][52]@Bearcat:--114.81.255.41 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Nothing but spam, and no substantial coverage. The two links provided by 114.81.255.41 don't mention his name in Latin letters, and when I search for his name 俞永福 in the text, I get lots of results — but they're all parts of words, not freestanding names. As far as I can see, it's as if we were searching for someone named Black and claimed that we were getting lots of coverage about the guy in articles about blacksmithing and blackmail. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted. See WP:NPA] 123.121.206.13 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised and somewhat offended that my comment was deleted by Nyttend. If you check the editing history, you will see that it was highly relevant to the discussion. Here it is again without any reference to Nyttend: The grandparent comment is false. Both of those links are absolutely about Yu Yongfu, the UCWeb chairman and CEO. Even translation software like Google Translate translates both of the linked articles well enough that it's very clear that they are about the article subject. "俞永福" is not even part of any word in Chinese. 111.206.190.220 (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (the same person as the parent deleted comment, but not the same person as the other deleted comment, which also wasn't a personal attack)[reply]

[Redacted. See WP:NPA] 114.81.255.37 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual. There is significant coverage out there on him in addition to the sources identified by 114.81.255.41. Most of it may be in Chinese, but that is perfectly acceptable, particularly in the light of WP:CSB. UCWeb is a big thing on the Chinese Internet landscape, so it's hardly surprising that there is in-depth coverage of Yu and the company. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have an account so my vote probably doesn't count, but I saw that you'd deleted UCWeb as well as trying to delete this guy, who is their chairman and CEO. Perhaps you don't realise how big and important this company is? It's not some little self-promoting mobile app; their browser has more than 500 million active users, and when Alibaba bought them out it was "the biggest merger in Chinese internet history", valuing the company at more than $1.9 billion USD (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ucweb-says-alibaba-buy-remainder-chinese-mobile-browser-022829518--finance.html ). 123.121.206.13 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What gets a person into Wikipedia is not the assertion of importance, but the quality of reliable sourcing that you can provide to support the assertion of importance. The UCWeb article was speedied for being a copyright infringement, because it was copied and pasted directly from somewhere else, and this article is not sourced to any substantive coverage of Yu Yongfu himself, but merely to articles which happen to mention his name strictly in passing. That doesn't mean that either the company or him as a person can never have articles on Wikipedia — but the onus is on you to ensure that you're following Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules when you try to write one, and not on Wikipedia to keep any version which violates those rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's why, in support of the notability claim, the first source cited above is an in-depth profile by the People's Daily, which is the Chinese equivalent of a reliable source similar to the The New York Times or The Times. That, along with the other Chinese coverage, makes him notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only go by the Google translation of this article, but by our usual standards this is puffery wherever published. PD is certainly reliable for many purposes, but if this is typical, it may not be for BLP of entrepreneurs. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage in other sources does exist.([53][54]) He is also discussed in this magazine. (114.81.255.*)@DGG:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:48, 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 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yu Yong has a claim to notability, CEO of large corporation, but I should point out that mention is not significant coverage. The magazine listed by 180.172.239.231 is not in depth coverage, just a mere mention. The other two may possibly be reliable sources, but the Sina source is a republisher, and it is hard to tell. The fact that they both read like "resumes" does not instill confidence that they are reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the FT source^[1] indicates him as a major player to watch (it's a full-blown profile - significant coverage), and the article in its current form does not look puffy to me. He's clearly a notable player in Chinese tech, and its mobile industry, which is the biggest in the world, and, although my Chinese isn't good enough to read the relevant Chinese sources, there are clearly plenty of them, as there are in specialist tech publications in English. They're also headlining articles about *him* - not about his business. A general note: we don't, I think, cover China particularly well, and I think any 36yo in Silicon Valley who'd built a company to that size and managed that sort of buyout would be included. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STS Love[edit]

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

Rather incoherent article about a (not yet open?) Russian TV channel. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from failing notability, we have a lack of language competence here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Having seen the hustle at ANI). The proper name is actually "CTC Love", and it is a part of the CTC Media group. Its startup was noted in the US, at

Halia Pavliva (Jan 30, 2014). "Love Channel Set to Spur CTC in Race for Female Viewers". Bloomberg.com.

but it's already covered in our CTC Media article. Since the article is about worthless, I suppose that a technical merge (i.e. redirect) into CTC Media is called for. Or WP:TNT or whatever. No such user (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 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 03:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as not notable. While it's apparently really a channel, which would normally counsel redirecting, this is an unlikely redirect. The correct one would be CTC Love, not STS Love (as for some reason that eludes me, the Cyrillic Es in the company's name is romanized as C). While we could still use it as a redirect from an alternate romanization scheme... the fact that this was created by a now-blocked hoaxer and sockpuppeteer makes me conclude that there's nothing of value here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:57, 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 15:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webdesign international festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. Sole link is dead. Not notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Insufficient coverage in WP:RS; no notability demonstrated. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:07, 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 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish notability in news serches. Official site down. ~KvnG 03:39, 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 00:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Olympia[edit]

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

(Following a suggestion made by MrX in this discussion). No indication of notability in the article as it stands, one event in a weekend with many; the only source is self-published by Joe Weider's business. News and book searches get no useful hits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here worth keeping. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 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 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real WP:RS here. If it was notable, there would be more sources. --Artene50 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding the article can continue on its talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Church[edit]

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

This appears to lack the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Simply being an old church does not confer notability; per WP:ORG significant coverage still must be demonstrated. I can't find any mention of this organization in news archive searches. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification. The article states that this church is part of the Old Harbor Historic District, which is registered in the NRHP. However, it is unclear to me whether the current building is actually one of the buildings of "special historic and architectural value" listed in the inventory of the NRHP nomination form. (I do see references in that inventory to the former site of an earlier building for this congregation, and to the Adrian Hotel which apparently served as the temporary home of the congregation.) [55] If it is, then at minimum this content (or at least some portion of it) would belong in the article about the historic district. If it isn't, then the notability of the building is in doubt, although some content about the history of the congregation and its buildings might still be appropriate in the historic district article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places - The current church is the former Adrian Hotel, which is no longer a hotel. The church has met in the former Adrian Hotel since 1944 though a sanctuary was built in 1952. The hotel and church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places under Old Port Historic District in New Shoreham, RI. The 1974 nomination form lists Adrian Hotel and Harbor Church in Part 25 under Spring Street though it has a 21 Water Street address. This is included in the Wikipedia article.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more relevant to combine this article with the Old Harbor Historic District article and expand on said article to include information about all the structures listed on its record [56] Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding correctly, the church is not on the National Register of Historic Places as an individual building, but it's in the district which is. If that's correct then I think Steve Lux, Jr.'s suggestion makes sense. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Tchaliburton. I went through the register for Rhode Island in great detail and verified this in the nomination form here [57]. I added a full listing of all the properties on the district article page. This article page does not seem necessary. I believe the information in the current article should be used on the district article page. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link has the Old Harbor Historic District individual listings: ^[2]Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hathorn, no it doesn't. The file lists all 42 properties as one group. Essentially, the listing on the National Historic Register is for the "district" of properties, not the individual properties themselves. If that were the case, there would be an individual listing for each of the properties, which there is not. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP register:

Spring Street:
Property 25 (intersection of Spring Street and Water Street, 21 Water Street): Adrian Hotel First Baptist Church (Harbor Church), 1886
Property 26: Hotel Manisses, 1882,
etc.}}Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hathorn, I know what the file says. The file lists the properties, as you just showed, as I have included the complete list on the Old Harbor Historic District article page. These individual properties are not listed in the NRHP, but only as a group. Therefore, your page should be merged with the district page and the Harbor Church page should be deleted as it does not constitute having its own article. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Billy Hathorn. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:44, 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 03:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, per Steve Lux, Jr.. Non-notable. The article currently conflates and confuses the entirely uninteresting religious institution (really, who cares what the parson's wife's name is?), in its fifth or sixth premises, with the structure of the Adrian Hotel, which appears to be of some conservation interest though not enough to justify a separate listing by the NRHP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has a listing of locations on the National Register of Historic Places. Not all have their own articles. Here is a part of the listing of, for example, Coconino County, Arizona, where there are some red links implying that they may be eligible for their own articles. I didn't notice any only in black print. Here are three red and two blue listings:

Current listings[edit]

^[3]	Name on the Register	Image	Date listed^[4]	Location	City or town
1	1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site	1956 Grand Canyon TWA – United Airlines Aviation Accident Site	April 22, 2014 (#14000280)	Near the confluence of the Colorado River and Little Colorado River 36°10′30″N 111°50′00″W / 36.175°N 111.833333°W / 36.175; -111.833333	Grand Canyon National Park
2	Abandoned Route 66, Ash Fork Hill	Upload image	May 19, 1989 (#89000380)	North of Interstate 40 between Ash Fork and Williams 35°13′10″N 112°21′39″W / 35.219444°N 112.360833°W / 35.219444; -112.360833 (Abandoned Route 66, Ash Fork Hill)	Ash Fork
3	Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1921)	Upload image	May 19, 1989 (#89000377)	West of Parks 35°15′36″N 111°57′19″W / 35.26°N 111.955278°W / 35.26; -111.955278 (Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1921))	Parks
4	Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1931)	Upload image	May 19, 1989 (#89000378)	East of Parks 35°15′35″N 111°56′43″W / 35.259722°N 111.945278°W / 35.259722; -111.945278 (Abandoned Route 66, Parks (1931))	Parks
5	Horace M. Albright Training Center	Upload image	September 13, 2013 (#13000784)	Albright Ave. & Center Rd. 35°58′41″N 111°59′26″W / 35.978006°N 111.990509°W / 35.978006; -111.990509	Grand Canyon National Park

Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4156464c-1fe5-11e3-8861-00144feab7de.html#axzz3AcSsPnuo
^ "Nomination form, National Register of Historic Places, Section 25 (Spring Street)" (PDF). preservation.ri.gov. May 8, 1974. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
^ Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.

Billy Hathorn, wrong. Red links do not mean that something is eligible for its own article. It means that someone linked it to a non-existant article page, such as JC Car Rentals. Just because I linked to a non-existant article page, does not mean that JC Car Rentals should ever have an article page in an encyclopedia. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If JC Car Rentals is an historic place on the register, wouldn't it qualify for a Wikipedia article? Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing JC Car Rentals. We are discussing the fact that the red links do not justify having a separate article. But for the sake of argument, yes, essentially, if JC Car Rentals was listed on the historic register then it may have its own article. But the fact is, Harbor Church is not listed on the historic register. The only tie to the church is that the Adrian Hotel building is in the DISTRICT NRHP listing. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Old Harbor Historic District or delete. If the "history" section in the article was sourced to reliable secondary sources, I would say "keep".--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how merging would be a viable solution. It would make the Old Harbor HD article look very distorted, giving undue weight to the church's information. If there is substantial information about the church itself (which there is), then it merits a stand-alone article. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:36, 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 00:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bolt[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:27, 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 03:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable hockey player who lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 05:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Bathe[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fails WP:NHOCKEY but he meets the criteria for WP:GNG. Searching Highbeam I found a bunch of stories about his hockey career that go beyond routine coverage. There's also coverage of him as a referee and coverage of his lawsuit stemming from an accident that ended his career. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:28, 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 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and needs better sources to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on your issue with the sources in relation to WP:GNG? Tchaliburton (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that the coverage was the usual reporting of a local athlete that is common. Jakejr (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. These stories are not routine coverage of a local athlete. There are in-depth pieces about his hockey career and separate profiles about him as a referee. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Tchaliburton. Sources are suffice to meet GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the significant coverage on Highbeam is from the Portland Press Herald, so that basically counts as one source. But there is also coverage in the Stockton Record. And minor coverage elsewhere. So I think this just gets over the GNG bar. In any case, even if he is not notable enough for a standalone article the sourceable text should be merged with Frank Bathe, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm uncertain, but leaning keep based on Rlendog's very good analysis. At the same time -- though not an AfD issue -- I would think that when creating articles like this it is generally good practice to have supporting refs; this article, though it has ELs, is lacking in refs, which is the sort of thing that attracts AfD nominations. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South African Education and Environment Project[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, this reads like a promotional article. I don't believe that this organisation is notable. An orphan article, nothing reaches here Gbawden (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 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, Davewild (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's only reference is to the subject's own web site. This seems to be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 17:52, 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 02:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a worthy charitable non-profit that has persisted for a long time. In paywalled newspaper database, i find "In Service: Native of city discovered his life's mission in a changing South Africa" Author: O'Donnell, Lisa, in Winston-Salem Journal (NC). 08/17/2008. This is a full-on article about the organization and what it does, keying off the story of a North Carolina lawyer Norton Tennille who quit his practice to go to Cape Town, South Africa, and organize the nonprofit. It was first called the South African Environment Project, and later renamed to the South African Education and Environment Project, and it "focuses mostly on education programs for pre-school children and high-school students in Cape Town." Later in the longish article: "Norton Tennille's organization, SAEP, reaches children on several fronts. At the high-school level, SAEP sponsors poetry workshops and debate teams, supplies science and math tutors, helps publish school newspapers and provides training in computers and information technology. Among other programs, it also provides "Gap Year" internships for recent high-school graduates. The interns in the program learn leadership skills, volunteer in the community and take some academic courses to prepare them for college and their careers. Many of the volunteers who help run the programs are American college students. Tennille has used his contacts here to form partnerships with many universities including UNC Chapel Hill, Duke and Yale. Students from the University of Cape Town also serve as tutors and mentors in various programs. Tennille's organization has a Winston-Salem flavor. Winston-Salem residents and natives sit on its various boards." and it continues. This is significant coverage about the founder and the organization.

Another news article about it is: "South Africa visit a culture shock" by KILMENY ADIE in Illawarra Mercury. 11/27/2001.

--do ncr am 03:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only section with references is the lede, so the major problem with this article is WP:V. The topic has received attention from the world at large over a period of time. Here is another ref, this one from the United Kingdom. Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 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 International Delphic Council. Consensus exists that there is a lack of notability, ATD prefers redirect to delete, no arguments advanced against the redirect and one advanced toward it. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Christian B. Kirsch[edit]

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

While this person might have enough notability to keep an article that actually cited proper reliable source coverage, as written this article is entirely unsourced. In addition, it warrants mention that the article was created by User:Delphico, and is therefore a likely conflict of interest if you compare that username to the topic's primary claim of notability. As always, I'm more than willing to withdraw this if good sourcing shows up before close, but he's not entitled to keep a BLP, especially one that he wrote himself, on Wikipedia in an unreferenced state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've added a reference, because we actually do not allow unreferenced articles on living people. However, the only independent sources I have been able to find are passing mentions: the one I added, plus as further examples [58], [59], [60] - plus, if he moonlights as a nightclub owner, [61], which is also only a passing mention. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Delphic Council, his claim to fame. He himself lacks substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:26, 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 02:57, 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 merge to Gel bracelet. (Thanks Mabalu for already completing it.) Daniel (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MY Single Band[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertising article for a flash-in-the-pan product which is no longer in existence. I would argue that this fails notability as all the citations are from about a single week last Autumn and there's no other references since; although notability is not temporary, I don't believe these articles constitute significant coverage. Morgana Fiolett 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Promo bs. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) to Gel bracelet. This is actually a quite well-sourced article. Even if the trend was short-lived, it relates directly to the sex bracelet section on Gel bracelet and demonstrates an instance where such wristbands were deliberately intended to reflect the person's relationship status and availability. I don't think it should be deleted outright. Mabalu (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:28, 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 02:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Merge has been pre-emptively carried out. Article has been squished into a single paragraph and moved to Gel bracelet. Mabalu (talk) 10:17, 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 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiratan Iorio[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find about 3 cites on GS. Many hundreds are usually required to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 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 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have a bit of a following among liberal/libertarian sites, but nothing that reaches WP:GNG. Short of WP:ACADEMIC indeed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:45, 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-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay filmography[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to make of this. I assume this ties into Vijay, but there is no lead, it is all tables, very little context. Found when patrolling the end of the NewPages log. There are some sources although entire sections are unsourced. The amount of tables and listing without context seems just overkill. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: It was moved from Vijay (actor). For some reason, the material was put back. So either Delete as redundant or Keep and remove duplicate content from parent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it can't stay in the main article if it must stay and there is no context in the separate article here, which should be deleted. Thanks for the heads up, I didn't check all the history, just knew this was a mess. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis that the article is complete mess but I'm also of the view that the parent article has become very lengthy. So it should be edited to look better rather than deleting the page. Mr RD 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly needs work, but it seems like a typical break-off article for someone who's notability is not in question and parent article is lengthy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:20, 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 02:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but complete restructuring of the page would be required as it is direct copy paste from the parent article which has really become lengthy. Mr RD 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Esprit15d further restructuring is needed and Vijay (actor) article has been very long and is clearly salvageable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 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 Redirect to My Name Is Bruce. nothing to merge (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce vs. Frankenstein[edit]

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

The film has not entered production. Koala15 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~: I found a few sources and added them in, but there doesn't seem to be much past the basic cast list, director, etc. Entered production or not, if there's the sources to show notability, it's worthy of an article. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: My Name Is Bruce already has nearly all this information, so merging this stub in wouldn't be too hard, and it can always be recovered per Spirit of Eagle's comment. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 02:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is one of those articles that is of dubious notability in the present, but will likely be notable in the future. Either keep as is, or merge/ redirect to My Name Is Bruce so that the edit history is preserved and the article can be brought up again if and when it reaches notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Name Is Bruce. While this proposed film has attracted some notice, and is therefore worth mentioning in Wikipedia, it has not yet entered production or otherwise met the relevant guideline WP:NFF. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:16, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rap opera[edit]

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

The topic easily fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recently rewrote Rock opera, and I came across references to rap operas, which are very briefly discussed in that article. For evidence of further coverage, I found this article at the New Statesman and this article at Star-News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by NRP. Bearian (talk)
Keep. Evidently there are rap opera companies, artists who describe their genre as "rap opera", and pages devoted to rap opera lyrics. Who knew? Not I, till I did some cursory googling. The many reviews of specific rap operas may include descriptions of the genre. Here's a book, The Ringtone Dialectic: Economy and Cultural Form (MIT Press), that gives some definition of the genre. My impression, though, is that the article will be stubbish. Everybody seems to know what a rap opera is and to throw the label around, but like many contemporary forms of expression, nobody's felt the need to pin it down as a critical genre. It may be that at present the article takes shape as an introduction to a list of notable rap operas. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:37, 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. Tawker (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arktis[edit]

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

Blatant self promotion. Conflict of interest. Article has been speedily deleted twice, and is being recreated by one of the company's senior officials. No evidence of notability. Just another clothing manufacturer. If this fails AFD can an admin salt it to prevent future recreation. Dmol (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' COI: The article appears to be written by William Jarret, who is listed as the Lead Designer for the company in the article. The author hasn't shown this company is Notable: The sources are a couple single pages of Raider magazine (not available online to verify if these are ads placed by the company or articles discussing the company at length), another wiki site and a blog post showing a single image obviously created by the company announcing an order. Stesmo (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett is not only their "lead designer", he is also their marketing guy... at least according to a portion of the article that was just deleted by an IP editor that came on Wikipedia solely to delete the two lines mentioning Jarrett in the article. While this version of the article does strip most (not all) of the promo-y material that was in previous versions, the current sourcing on it is dubious in meeting our guidelines for the audience requirements of establishing notability for organizations, relying heavily on a single magazine. I also don't know whether the magazine Raider is an independent source, or whether it's a magazine which Arktis advertises heavily in; we do not seem to have an article on this magazine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. If anyone wants to merge or transwiki the content, they can do so at their choosing from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Lantau 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. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "dePRODed. I believe that the article can be improved and the notability can be established. AfD would be more appropriate than PROD." However, no additional references or sources were added to the article thus the notability issue remains unresolved. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Transwiki travel related content to ~~Wikitravel or~~ Wikivoyage. Non notable thoroughfare lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Wikivoyage is a Wikimedia project. Wikitravel is not. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the "Road transport" section of the Lantau Island article. It is the main road of Lantau Island. Its construction in 1955 (referenced) is linked to the development of Lantau and the construction of Shek Pik Reservoir and the removal of villages in Shek Pik. This events were extensively documented by James Hayes (see refs in South Lantau Road and Shek Pik articles). Thank you for merging and not just erasing the information. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:42, 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 keep. The nature of "substantial" coverage is inherently a subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus (if not a unanimous one) that the provided sources are good enough in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin 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. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed with the comment, "at least some substantial coverage found, doesn't belong at prod". However, not additional references or links to said 'substantial coverage' have been added thus the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One editor created a large number of cookie cutter articles on Hong Kong streets. Almost all the articles I have nominated were created by the same editor in a short space of time. There seems to have been an effort to create a directory articles about every street in HK irrespective or notability. They contain the same reference to a tourist guidebook or no reference at all. The reference only proves the existence of the road not the notability. The article doesn't even mention why the road is notable. Just because it is a large road does not mean it is notable. Most of the information within these articles is original research rather than based on sources.

In contrast to the creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated but before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. Look in my contributions log and you'll see these nominations are a trivial section.

Wikipedia has a sister project called WikiVoyage to which I also contribute. All these road articles would make an excellent addition to that site. While Wikipedia is not a tourist guidebook or directory, WikiVoyage is. If you want to preserve these article, copy them over to there. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: I seriously doubt that the information of this article would be suited for Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, if you think it is, as your introductory note unclearly suggests, I would encourage you to move it there, rather than only requesting a deletion here. You say that you are a contributor to Wikivoyage, so I would very much appreciate if you made the effort to transfer the content there rather than asking whoever is reading your mass nominations to do it.

Note 2: "if the article can be improved then it will be" => but you haven't improved ANY of the 34 articles that you have PRODed or/and AfDed. Wasn't there anything to be improved there?

Note 3: "The article history is checked" => so what? This article (Austin Road) has been created 9 years ago. It had 63 edits. And suddenly you come and say "I want this article erased. NOW". Same thing for the other 33 articles. Is it urgent to delete them? Does it make Wikipedia a better place? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the very in-depth source indicated by Arxiloxos [62], there's also more I've found in just a few seconds.[63] Yes, this nom has lately been making several unhelpful AfDs of almost every Hong Kong street article they come across when time and effort would be better served improving existing articles. --Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the subject of the article without making comments about other editors. This is a exaggeration, "almost every Hong Kong street article they come across." There are several similar AfDs because several similar non-notable articles were created in bulk. The number of similar AfDs does not have any bearing on whither this article should be kept. The second reference you linked is about John Gardiner Austin, whom the road is named after. It only proves that the road exists it doesn't evidence the road's notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. How do you know all of these "similar non-notable articles" that "were created in bulk" are non-notable? Just as they "were created in bulk" you AfD'd all of them in bulk. Your creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apliu Street is another obvious example of that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate repeating myself but it seems I have to. In contrast to the article creator, these are not cookie-cutter nominations. The text used above may be repeated because the reason for the nominations are identical. However, before nominating time and care is taken to research the subject. The article history is checked and if the article can be improved then it will be. I didn't just nominate all the Hong Kong road articles in bulk. I have spent over a week going through each one by one. It has taken a great deal of my time to clean up someone else's mess. If you want to improve the article, and can do so, the please do that. I would like noting better than a good quality article on an interesting topic. However, your issue here seems to be nothing to do with the article but rather the number of AfDs. The number of AfD and the discussions on those other AfD has no bearing on the notability of this article. Rincewind42 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"someone else's mess" is certainly a very personal opinion. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong. Arxiloxos' reference is the same one cited as a reason to keep Jordan Road, Hong Kong. To recap, it's a guidebook and although it may have a chapter entitled "Austin Road", the coverage therein is about surrounding buildings and features, which may or may not be notable in their own right. Notability is not inherited such that a road being the location of a notable feature does not make the road itself notable. The "in-depth" source cited by Oakshade contains exactly 20 words (excluding Chinese characters) on Austin Road that do nothing more than describe its route, hardly earth-shattering and readily available elsewhere other than Wikipedia (i.e. Wikitravel or Wikivoyage). Furthermore, the fact that the road is named after John Gardiner Austin contributes to his notability, not the other way around. In summary, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES, this road is non-notable and lacks the required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant its own article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to delete because John Gardiner Austin doesn't contribute to this road's notability is a straw man as nobody here is claiming he does. The multi-page chapter on this topic is all encompassing of this road and that it goes into all the features on it is all the more reason of its notability per that source. --Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, John Gardiner Austin is the lead topic in the cited source. Everything else is ancillary. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of the multi-page chapter about this topic explaining it was named after John Gardiner Austin is not a reason to delete this article. It's in fact more reason to keep it as the source is going into the history of this topic. Nobody here is stating just because the street is named after him makes the street notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to see the article deleted, which is why my !vote is to redirect it to a more suitable location. Geographic and other adjunct travel details belong in Wikitravel or Wikivoyage, not here. Who the road is named after and other relevant historical details can be covered in a single paragraph in List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:29, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apliu Street[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. Wikipedia is not a directory of streets or a travel guide. The information in the article would be better suited to WikiVoyage. The article was previously PROD but the tag remove with the comment, "substantial coverage exists, inappropriate for prod." However, no new references or links to said 'substantial coverage' were added to the article so the notability issue remains. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage is cited in the article, although the nominator evidently disagrees that it's substantial coverage. This is one of a large number of cookie-cutter nominations intent on wiping out the existing comprehensive coverage of the streets of Hong Kong. Unfortunately I find myself responding with a repeated objection. I don't think these deletions would result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily object to thoughtful, substantive mergers of these street articles into one or more collective articles in keeping with the teachings of WP:PRESERVE; wholesale deletion is not consistent with my conception of our editing policies and the values that explain why this project exists. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the coverage indicated by Arxiloxos, I've found more. [64][65][66][67][68] Nicknamed "Apple Street" as shown by the last source, it appears very famous for its market of electronics. This nom has been making a slew of Hong Kong street AfDs with little regard to WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Enough with this barrage of thoughtless AfDs. There are certainly some HK streets that do not deserve coverage, but it has become clear there is no effort to distinguish between the notable and the non-notable. Apliu Street is perhaps the most famous street in Sham Shui Po. Many Hong Kong articles are poorly referenced and neglected, because generally these subjects get more attention on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have slowly been working to improve referencing on Hong Kong subjects over the past year and many articles which were long stubs have recently been improved by the community. Wholesale deletion is not the answer. Citobun (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:56, 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. If any established editor wants the content to fork certain sports (including The-Pope), then feel free to post on my talk page and I'll send you the content from the deleted article for the sports in question. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople who died during their careers[edit]

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

This list is an incomprehensible melting pot and it is unmanageable Sismarinho (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being too indiscriminate and vague. The criteria include the phrase "could still have been active". Who gets to decide whether that applies? I do see a viable cut-down version: List of sportspeople who died while competing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Just imagine all the athletes who died while fighting in the two world wars. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A massive, ugly mess that grows rapidly and is not maintainable. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not inherently non-notable, the list is far too vague and indiscriminate to be of any use to a reader. I would suggest nuking and paving, then creating with a more narrow scope. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague criteria and seems like original research. Jakejr (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up/split Not a single try at maintenance? No suggestions on the discussion page, or any kind of notification beforehand? Just "Bwah, I don't like it"? Sry, I fail to detect the good faith in calling something "unmanageable" that you haven't tried to manage in the first place. Removing all those non-notable college athletes would be a good start. While this article certainly is a mess in its current state, I think the loss of useful information would weigh in heavily. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the criteria for being on this list are indiscriminate and vague. Someone can get on the list if they "could still have been active", but that seems like it would necessarily be a judgment call. There's also the criteria about officially retiring, but that's not as cut-and-dry as it seems. Some players don't "officially" retire for years, and many never make a official announcement. Additionally, Lou Gehrig did offically retire, so doesn't that mean the criteria say he shouldn't be included? Why are soccer players who died while actually playing soccer on a separate list? The article says that it's because there's a lot of them, but there are a lot of soccer deaths under "car accident" too, and they're not on a separate list. Why are coaches included for some sports, but not others? Why are baseball umpires included but referees in other sports not? If the list is meant to be athletes only, shouldn't it say that? I do agree with the others that a list of smaller scope such as List of sportspeople who died while competing could work. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fork As most of the delete !votes here are "too vague", can I suggest that individual sports projects are notified of this AFD, in case they want to rescue/fork their list into a more clearly defined list, as I intend to do with cricket and Australian football. When you are talking about individual sports, it is a lot easier to tightly define what "still competing" means than trying make rules that adequately cover all sports. The-Pope (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly you people really make me sick with the way you talk about people. The majority of these people died and this is the only way they will be remembered on a larger scale, and you have the nerve to talk about "not important" and "not notable" college athletes? Here's a little newsflash for you: ALL college athletes who die are notable. ALL athletes who die at any level are notable. They trained their whole lives to do what they do and they had it taken away from them along with any chance of having the long life you all take for granted simply by a cruel act of fate. They gave up their lives to be public figures and gave everything they had for the name on the back of their jersey. Get some respect.

I have read this list before. All of it. It deserves to exist because these people deserve to be remembered and how dare you try to take that away from them just because you don't like the way the page looks. Things like this are exactly why I'm starting to really dislike Wikipedia.24rhhtr7 (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648

[2] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PDSS..199.....F

[3] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511002235

[4] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511000935

[5] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103510004811

[6] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhDT.......134F

[7] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513004648

[8] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G

[9] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1405.3970M

[10] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010M%26PSA..73.5122F

[11] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013M%26PSA..76.5124G

[12] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014LPI....45.1428F

[13] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PDSS..146.....F

[14] ttp://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V1.0

[15] ttp://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewDataset.jsp?dsid=EAR-A-I0046-3-FBIRTFSPEC-V2.0

[16] ttp://www.calsky.com/observer/dataminor.cgi?page=14

[17] ttp://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/4156464c-1fe5-11e3-8861-00144feab7de.html#axzz3AcSsPnuo

[18] "Nomination form, National Register of Historic Places, Section 25 (Spring Street)" (PDF). preservation.ri.gov. May 8, 1974. Retrieved July 30, 2014.

[NRHP_colors-19] Numbers represent an alphabetical ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.

[refnums-20] The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.

[P 1]

[P 2]

[P 3]

[P 4]

[P 5]

[P 6]

[P 7]

[P 8]

[P 9]

[P 10]

[P 11]

[P 12]

[P 13]

[P 14]

[P 15]

[P 16]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]