Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 December	17 December >

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 merge to ABBYY. Mr.Z-man 01:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABBYY PDF Transformer[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to ABBYY - Software article with some RS independent refs. The PC Magazine review in particular is significant coverage, and a few of the other reviews are probably RS. A merge to the company that developed the software makes sense because both articles are relatively short, especially once promotional language is removed, and the ABBYY page already has a section for various software products.Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There's not a lot left after the advertising is pared down, but enough for a mention at the company's article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to ABBYY–ABBYY PDF Transformer. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion does not suggest a basis for an independent article, neither does the paucity of information. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fairly clear consensus here that Ziporyn doesn't meet the relevant notability criteria, but I will pre-emptively move this to the draft space after deletion as that has been requested multiple times in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Ziporyn[edit]

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

A minor scholar who does not meet the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. White Whirlwind 咨 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:He 1) is Professor at U Chicago School of Divinity, which meets criterion #6~~ 2)has made impact in his discipline which is "significant" enough to meet #1. That is he is cited in probably half a dozen Wikipedia articles, his first 3 articles on Google scholar are cited by 33, 29, and 26. So, seems more than good enough, since readers of the articles with notes to works by him might want to know who he is. But the reference to the "most recent" translation of Zhuangzi should go. ch (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrary to what ch says, he does not meet WP:PROF#C6, unless he is somehow the president of the whole University of Chicago (that is what the "highest-level academic post" in that criterion means). But as an author of multiple books, there is a strong chance of passing WP:AUTHOR if we can dig up enough published reviews of or in-depth responses to those books. The Loy source is helpful in this respect, but it is only one source, and for only one of the books. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assess as Stub rather than delete Thanks to David Eppstein and apologies that I did not read the detailed explanation of criterion #6 in the following section. You are quite right. Apologies also that I do not have time now to look at the reviews of his books. But it seems that there may be enough to justify notability in the WP:Author area:

Google Scholar Brook Ziporyn gives several hundred hits, both to his articles and citations of them. Articles on the first page have from 33 to 5 citations to them. On the following pages, his articles appear in the leading journals in his field.
Project Muse is hard to interpret, since it doesn't distinguish authorship from mention in text.
He is included in Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings Oxford UP
In addition to the David Loy item, "Reply to BZ" in Philosophy East and West, here

It would seem better to assess the article as "Stub" rather than delete, since there is more than enough raw material yet unmined. Cheers ch (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Since I won't have time or access to a university library for a few weeks, if White_whirlwind, David Eppstein, and TonyTheTiger agree, according the essay WP:USERFY#YES we could move the article to a namespace for further work. I had no other connection to this article before this discussion began but I would be willing to move it to my userspace if nobody else wants to work on it. How does this sound?ch (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (or possibly userfy). As noted above I think there are enough different in-depth reviews of enough of his books to pass WP:AUTHOR (an easier bar than WP:PROF#C1 but one that makes more sense for an area of academia where progress is measured in books rather than scientific papers). In particular, those who have subscription access can see the following reviews that I found through a Google scholar search (and which should be used to source the material about his books in our article): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] (there is some overlap between the jstor ones and the others, so this is not quite as many links as it looks like, but still plenty). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Userfication request are made at WP:AN (not by pinging random editors). The closer of this nomination could also consider the request if it ends in delete or redirect. Since when does having papers reviewed make one notable. Every half decent junior professor would pass by this standard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not papers, they're books. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a professor is not enough to make people notable. He is just one of many scholars in the field, and nothing makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete professor is not the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post", he is not even the head of his department. Yes his works have been cited several times, but none of those suggest that he has made a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. For an example of significant impact see Charles A. Beard. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and fails WP:AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the evidence now in the article does not justify Academic Notability, and ask that Bejnar accept my renewed apologies for mistakenly raising the "highest level" argument. I wonder how Johnpacklambert can know that "nothing makes him notable" before the evidence has been gathered. The fact that the case has not been made does not establish that the case cannot be made. As someone who works in the Asian studies field (though with no connection to Ziporyn or with the article before now), I believe that the case can be made and would appreciate having a few weeks until I have time to make a shot at it, after which the group can look at a better case.ch (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot support an extension of this Afd, since the article has been around since 1 February 2011 (almost four years). There are other options if you believe that a sufficient article can be written in the future. --Bejnar (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To remind friends who have commented here of several relevant considerations:

WP:ATD “If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.”
WP:Notability#Article content does not determine notability: " if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."
The article has indeed existed since 2011, but Afd only for less than a week.

All the best, ch (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, but there's not enough there there. No reason to doubt CWH's good will, but I got to admit I've heard "If only we had a few more weeks to improve the article" about a thousand times. If it hadn't been improved in years, there's no reason to think the material's there now. If CWH'd like to userfy it and take a stab at it, sure, great. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Agricultural Sciences[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal, not indexed in any selective database. Only claim to notability is being published by a predatory open access publisher that is on Beall's list. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". DePRODded by article creator without stated reason. PROD rationale still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've denatured the promotional links. No need to give these people any more free SEO. Delete, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 04:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—48 holdings via worldcat, which I have to say is a little surprising. NAAS score is 2.37 (score explanation). This looks like a cellar dweller. Not seeing any other indication of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable predatory journal. PianoDan (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.marcopolis.net/about-us.htm. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcopolis.net[edit]

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

Speedied and deleted twice for blatant promotion, cleared NPP in its current form. Even with the balder promotional language stripped out, I can find no evidence that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. In fact, I can't find any information on them at all from a secondary WP:RS. Deadbeef 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a blatant copyvio of http://www.marcopolis.net/about-us.htm . Most of this article is a verbatim copy, and the remainder is extremely close (just a few words changed) paraphrasing. Meters (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if this is truly a copyrighted article, delete it. I was only defending it due to removing of peacock terms. This is not my article, it was a deleted article that was removed because of Peacock terms and promotion. When I restored it, I was not aware of copyright infringement. ಠ_ಠ @TNTdonut (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy copyvio requested. Meters (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manut pa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT... Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not the place for neologism. Also, the sources are not reliable, such as Blogspot. JMHamo (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I noted on the article talk page five minutes prior to the AfD nom, "The subject of this article is easily notable, as it has received tons of press coverage. The Bangkok Post alone carries several comprehensive articles[19][20][21][22][23] which could be used to replace the blog references." --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral We don't have articles even for English neologisms. I have to go to the Urban Dictionary to find out what they mean. Granted, we do have an article on Herbivore men. But that term is mainly a springboard for popular analyses of changes in Japanese society, everything from the birth rate to the economy, gender roles, etc. Does this term tell us anything about Thai society, other than that people are annoyed by rudeness? There was some of that in one of the Bangkok Post articles. But it didn't look like enough for a whole article. Thin on general significance. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEO says, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Why should this be deemed not to be the case here? In addition to those Bangkok Post articles, the term has been discussed (not merely used), by multiple national news outlets, including Prachachat Turakij,[24] Thai PBS,[25] Post Today,[26] Krungthep Turakij,[27] and MCOT's FM 100.5,[28] not to mention the numerous sensationalist newspapers which are the country's best-selling. It has even been covered by Mahidol University's Population and Development Newsletter[29] and a press release from the Rajanukul Institute of Mental Health.[30] --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the question, "Does this term tell us anything about Thai society?" Yes. Those sources discuss the conflict between the tradition of giving respect and priority to one's elders and the manners that have come to be accepted in modern society, as well as the dangers of the trend transforming into a hate/discriminatory movement. I think that's enough potential content upon which to build a Wikipedia article. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I changed my vote to neutral. I'm willing to wait if it can get more content. I do think it needs more than just a list of behaviors and the editor's own analysis. Also I think it might help to move the article to an English name. I'm sure that "Manut pa" is an interesting name in Thai, funny or incongruous or whatever, but not knowing Thai it doesn't do anything for me. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite being mentioned in sources, which I admit I can't translate, this is a dictionary entry not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia at this point as per WP:NOTDICT. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree this is a dictionary definition, and appears to be based completely on original research. Not only does the article contain its own OR, but its citations are also pure OR. Of the 3 sources cited, the blog citation is not appropriate, the manager.co.th is an editorial piece, and the Bangkok Post piece consists of more OR and personal commentary by the author in the Lifestyle section — hardly authoritative sources. As to the coverage identified by Paul_012 above, only one of them might be considered a bona-fide article; all the others are purely personal commentary. Is an obscure "lifestyle" writer's original research worthy of representation in a global encyclopedia?
That said, the content of this article could be kept as part of a larger list article on Thai vocabulary, similar to Singlish vocabulary, which includes similar terms. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:No original research policy means that articles' content must not be Wikipedia authors' own original research. Primary and secondary sources will of course contain original research; where else would their information come from? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My argument above was two-fold, that the article contains its own OR, and that a non-notable author's personal opinion, just because it happens to be published, is no different than a blog, and does not constitute a reliable source for purposes of evaluating the notability of a topic. Original research that has been quoted in other reliable sources, or peer-reviewed, is a better indicator of notability. Somebody's personal reflections in an editorial piece are not. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the delete !votes are being made with regard to the current status of the article, which I agree is inadequate. I'm fine with it being deleted without prejudice to creating a new, proper article. I question, though, whether this is in the spirit of WP:BEFORE, which says, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." --Paul_012 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make it worth inclusion I will change my opinion but as it currently stands this article should be in Wikitionary not Wikipedia. If there are verifiable sources for the significance of this phrase with perhaps a history of it's origins. As I do not speak Thai, and no one else has stepped up to improve the article it should be deleted or merged into an article as Amatulić suggested above.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 2 December 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, Go Phightins! 00:09, 8 December 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, Deadbeef 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why the heck was this relisted once, let alone twice? It's a NEOLOGISM. It's a DICDEF. Only ONE editor's advocating keeping the thing. Done deal. Or it should've been. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel E. Thorbecke[edit]

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

According to the BLP guidelines, "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion", and while this article may have that going for it the subject has two movies that lack articles here, a questionable affair in the article body, and lastly but arguably most importantly, no apparent notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I therefore put to the community the issue of whether this article should be deleted or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Kudos to TomStar81 for an even-handed nomination. Inspired by vague considerations of WP:CSB, I've added one solitary reference to the article. it's not hard to find others by searching for "Daniel Thorbecke". Whether they amount to notability by our standards I will leave others to decide, but will observe that our coverage of film-making in the Cabo Verde archipelago is not so extensive that we can lightly discard an addition to it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unable to ascertain whether this is the same person as the Daniel Thorbecke who played the lead role in the 1982/83 Konrad aus der Konservenbüchse (translated at IMDb as Konrad the Factory-Made Boy). BFI. That led me to a page on the film at Filmportal.de, which lists him as having directed a 1996 experimental short called The Dreamer. Moritzgeschichten appears to be another child role by the same actor. If these are two halves of the same person's career, it widens the field for potential sources considerably and the lead role in Konrad might put him over the top. But I can't nail down whether it's the same person. He doesn't appear to have an official site. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 4 December 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, Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd just delete. No obvious direct coverage. If we're having trouble identifying the works he's actually responsible for, he's likely not notable. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 8 December 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, Deadbeef 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 03:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nedy Baro[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to be meeting Wikipedia's standard of inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication subject would meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC criteria. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing coverage qualifying the subject for an article per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 16 December 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, Deadbeef 20:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS establishing that the subject passes WP:GNG via WP:MUSICBIO or WP:MUSIC --Jersey92 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG + MUSIC. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Dare to Be Stupid. Mr.Z-man 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Is the Life ("Weird Al" Yankovic song)[edit]

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

I boldly redirected this a few years ago as it didn't seem to meet WP:NSONGS. But recently, a few IP addresses have seen fit to undo the redirect. As far as I can tell, this song was never a charted single, nor was anything specific ever written about it; by all aspects of WP:NSONGS it seems to fail. Suggest deletion or locked redirection to the album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Page protect - Per nom; doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Unable to immediately find significant coverage. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then indef protect - Non notable song - Fails Nsong, (As for indef protection I personally think it's the best option but not sure so will leave with deciding admin if this option is preferred). –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 December 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, Deadbeef 20:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specific things have been written about it. And being the theme tune for a movie seems adequate impact for it to be a separate page. Andrew D. (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Andrew Davidson; I think the strict interpretation of WP:NSONG behind the nomination is too strict here, and doesn't facilitate the organization of legitimate encyclopedic content about songs. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It clearly fails WP:NSONG. The argument that "Specific things have been written about it" is only valid if there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I don't see that coverage. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing there to make this song notable, not even the "references" --Richhoncho (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Stransky[edit]

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

Non-notable minor-league hockey player. Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY as he's never played in a top league and has too few games in the AHL. I don't see anything that would qualify him for WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails to meet NHOCKEY and doesn't seem to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Four sources in article say it all: Blog, press release, trivial mention, trivial mention. Reso lute 19:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:NHOCKEY, as above. Added just in case someone thinks this discussion might otherwise have lacked participation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wharton Presbyterian Church, Wharton Lane[edit]

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

Contested prod, no evidence of any notability, not a listed building (demolished in 1980), article has very little contents anyway. Routine coverage certainly exists, but anything beyond that? Fram (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No content, no evidence of notability, no likelihood of this incomplete draft being finished as the author was blocked for vandalism (?) about that time.

I would note though that plenty of listed buildings are still demolished despite. I've certainly no objection to recreation, if someone is going to write and finish an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Could be speedy deleted as empty. Also no objection if a well sourced article was written.Charles (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- 19th century churches are nothing unusual in England. Even if it had been listed and was demolished with listed building consent, I would need a good deal of persuading before I voted otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Has been speedied G12. Peridon (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on maths in our daily life[edit]

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

Junk "essay" Imaginatorium (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Math is important, but this essay's scope is already covered under Applied mathematics. Altamel (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a11, made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental law of circlejerk[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic content. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Everymorning talk 14:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 (article is already tagged). Ivanvector (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rare Ltd.. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim and Chris Stamper[edit]

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

Article appears to have been rescued from a previous AfD in 2007. ([31]) I'm not sure exactly what to do with this article, but as a BLP (albeit for two people) it needs to be sourced. There are sources out there that mention them, but a lot of them seem to be fansites or articles where the main focus is on Rare (eg: The Independent). From my understanding of the pair, going from their days as hardware arcade developers, though to Ultimate, then Rare, they seem to have deliberately avoided any sense of notability in preference to just "getting on with the job" and producing quality products, so I think they qualify as "low profile individuals" mentioned in WP:BIO1E. The article could be redirected to Rare Ltd, their best known company, but I'm not sure anyone is going to type in "Tim and Chris Stamper" into a search. Either one of them I could argue a redirect, but not both. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rare Ltd. Additionally, create "Tim Stamper" and "Chris Stamper" redirects to the same target, as they are probably more likely search terms. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see Rare Ltd as a reasonable target.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compositions 1960[edit]

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

This "composition" is mentioned in the article on the "composer" -- surely this is sufficient for vacuous drivel on this level? (Sorry, that's technically something like "Not notable") Imaginatorium (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not for the editors of this encyclopedia to judge whether an art piece is unworthy based on the subject itself of inclusion here. To address the notability argument, several sources have been cited in the article that demonstrate significant coverage. One book devotes several pages to the seventh composition alone [32]. This article [33] covers LaMonte's compositions and this book gives non-trivial coverage on composition 10 [34]. I believe this article meets the guidelines of WP:NMUSIC. Altamel (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-known work, as indicated by the extensive and broad set of references on the article. (WP:NMUSIC may be problematic, as its focus on biographies and recordings doesn't really sit with conceptual compositions, but this work does meet WP:GNG. I'll also add that coincidentally its re-purposed cover page is currently on exhibition at Inverleith House in Edinburgh and was discussed / played there by Tony Conrad last month.) AllyD (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps "not notable" wasn't quite what I meant anyway. I am not suggesting the "work" is not worth mentioning, only whether it deserves a separate page, rather than being described (as it already is) in the article on the "composer". Even for real music I think it is preferable for minor works to be discussed in the context of the composer -- as for example Clarinet_Quintet_(Täglichsbeck), which I also suggesting removing. I also wonder whether someone should look at copyright, since it looks as though this page reproduces more or less the whole "score". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I started and made the first 30 or so edits to the article. Definitely meets the Notability criteria, per comments above. While these compositions aren't as NOTABLE as, say Beethoven's Fifth, they are still discussed in the music world.

As for Reasons for deletion listed on the Deletion policy page:

Meets speedy deletion criteria? NO
Copyright violation? NO
Vandalism? NO, unless you consider all modern music to be "vandalism"
Advertising? NO, unless you consider all articles on Wikipedia to be promotional content for their respective subjects
Content fork? NO
Unverifiable content? NO, look at the sources
Unreliable sources? NO, look at the sources
Notability issues? NO, per above comments
BLP breach? NO, because a composition is not a person
Useless template? NO, because this isn't a template
Contrary to namespace policy? NO, because this is an article
Not suitable for encyclopedia? It is suitable, because it is about a composition

Your hatred for modern music is not valid grounds for the deletion of this article. Lime save 03:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ribbon Soundworks[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & comment I can work on getting some more references. This company's products were prominent in the computer music production world in the early '90s and there are going to be lots of references in paper magazines from the era (for example, here is one from Sound on Sound). As this company largely existed before the popularity of the web and many magazines from that era are now extinct, there are not going to be a lot of solid google-able references. In addition, the company was originally named "Blue Ribbon Bakery" which is a rather ambiguous term so that's also going to interfere with simple searches. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable part of Microsoft history with cites available. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added I've added five sources so far, including three different print magazines of the era. This should establish notability per WP:COMPANY. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nomination This article has been revamped albeit a little but has considerable chances to do better.Thanks for Your efforts @Orange Suede Sofa.Lakun.patra (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bando Electronic Systems[edit]

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

May not be notable as per Wikipedia guidelines. No references provided. Google search did not provide anything substantial. Please add references if notable Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are turning up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with search with Korean terms, I couldn't find RS. — Revi 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-pae[edit]

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

Title is inappropriate; body consists of a few sentences about some feature of the Linox kernel, plus the same(?) info in Danish. This is not an encyclopedic article. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's actually something encyclopedic to say about this topic, we can start over again from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability (only 2 refs were to wikipedia articles, which is against ref guidelines). Unencyclopedic wording and unclear scope.Dialectric (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7: no explanation of the subject's significance (organization). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Chemical[edit]

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

May not be notable. Although article was created in 2005 no references has been provided. I was not able to find any news also in Google. Please provide references if notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete abandoned two sentence article. Artw (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence or even any claim of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->
-->

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mr.Z-man 03:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Virgin Megastore, Sunset Strip EP[edit]

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

Non notable album that fails WP:NALBUMS MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 2 December 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, Go Phightins! 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real effort made to create an encyclopedia article, and no indication that an article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 15 December 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 12:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 01:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota–Nebraska football rivalry[edit]

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

Per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable and must meet WP:GNG. This rivalry simply lacks the coverage to satisfy these criteria. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I was initially influenced by the fact that the Minnesota-Nebraska series has a "rivalry trophy." However, there has been a proliferation of such trophies within the Big Ten Conference. According to one article linked here: "With Nebraska and Wisconsin adding the Freedom Trophy, there are now five trophies at stake in the six games among Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. So that means five of the six Heartland rivalry games will have a trophy. Currently, Minnesota-Nebraska is the only game in that foursome not to have a trophy, and while those two schools seem to have virtually nothing in common, Minnesota running back David Cobb said in the summer he plans on turning Minnesota-Nebraska into a competitive annual series." With the addition of a trophy for Minn-Nebr., every game in that group now has a trophy. See also this piece explaining that the "Broken Chair" trophy was created as essentially an Internet joke. So, the existence of a trophy does not make this a notable rivalry. The two teams did play regularly in historic times, and if someone can come up with evidence that the game was historically considered a true rivalry, I would reconsider my "delete" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some support for the argument that there has been a historic rivalry can be found (1) here. IMO, more sourcing is needed to establish this series as a true historic rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also (2) this article from 1943 referring to the "long football rivalry" between Minnesota and Nebraska. Also (3) this 1956 AP story about the Minn-Nebr "rivalry". Further, and FWIW, (4) a history of Nebraska football published in 2013 (found here) notes: "Rivals of Nebraska's early teams included Notre Dame, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh." Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, Cbl, I have not done my BEFORE due diligence on this subject yet, but the two newspaper articles linked above seem to be using the word "rivalry" in its most generic sense, and neither discusses the history and significance of the series as a traditional college rivalry. The book at least recognizes that the series may have had greater significance in it earlier years. I think we're all looking for coverage that's a little meatier -- including you. "Real" rivalries should have generated some feature articles in regional, if not national newspapers and sports publications. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Nice to have you back, Big Guy.[reply]

I haven't done a lot of due diligence either, and still haven't changed my vote from "delete", but I am closer to being on the fence now. The two newspaper articles linked above (1943 and 1956) are not local coverage. The 1956 article is a nationally circulated AP story picked up by a Washington paper, and the 1943 one also appears to be a national wire service piece picked up by a Delaware paper. Cbl62 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more historic sources dealing with the series as a rivalry: (5) this 1964 piece referring to it as a rivalry dating back 64 years; and (6) this further publication of the 1956 AP story titled "Nebraska, Minnesota Renew Grid Rivalry." See also (7) this bleacherreport piece debating whether or not the series should be considered a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it needs is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. That's what I'm not finding. It's not enough to find mentions of a rivalry, but there needs to be significant coverage of the rivalry itself. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Cbl's findings, I think we should allow interested parties to summarize the extant sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, did you read Cbl's linked sources? Three do not constitute significant coverage, and the only modern newspaper story calls into question whether Minnesota-Nebraska is a traditional rivalry. Those are some slender reeds to hang your notability argument upon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All those references establish is that there is a rivalry. They don't establish that it is notable. WP:GNG needs to be met to keep this. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this vein, why isn't Nebraska-Oklahoma deleted? auburnjohn (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question, auburnjohn. The Nebraska–Oklahoma football rivalry was one of the great rivalries in the history of the sport. The fact that the series has been put on hold does not render it less notable. Notability is not temporary. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not convinced that deletion will help Wikipedia in this case. Granted, that's weak. But there's been a lot of deletions in the college football realm lately and I think we're getting a little over-zealous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you're entitled to your opinion, but it would be helpful if you could provide some basis in policy or the guidelines for keeping this article. To wit, is there significant coverage of this game series as a rivalry in multiple, independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines? This article subject is clearly a gray zone case, so providing a reliably sourced feature article or two that (a) confirm that this series is, in fact, a real rivalry, and (b) discuss the rivalry's history and significance would probably cement a consensus for keeping it. Cbl and I are going through the exercise of reviewing 80+ years of coverage in Google News Archive and Newspapers.com, and the results so far are pretty thin in reliable sources. Your assistance is requested. And, yes, there will be 25 or more CFB rivalry articles (and another 10-15 regular season game articles) nominated for AfD after New Year's -- it's long overdue that we purge stand-alone articles for CFB game series that are not traditional rivalries and/or notable per NRIVALRY and GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It is a policy, and it states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that the continued rapid removal of games, rivalries, and other college football articles based on the opinions of a handful of active users at the present time is preventing us from improving Wikipedia. This purge really gains us nothing and we lose a lot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how including non-notable content will improve Wikipedia. It does the opposite. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe the topic clearly passes WP:GNG and is notable, and therefore can be included. But there are a few editors who argue that point, so rather than go there I choose to ignore. Here's how it will go: I'll say it clearly passes WP:GNG; another editor will say it fails WP:ROUTINE; I will say they need to read that guideline because the content is more than just sports scores as the guideline dictates; that editor will ignore that comment and say the coverage is routine; another editor will say it is routine; I point out the essay at WP:NOTROUTINE outlining the reasons that the routine argument fails; I will be told that I don't understand WP:ROUTINE because it applies to more than just sports scores for sports; I will ask at WP:ROUTINE for clarification and will get none; I will point out that routine specifically says "sports scores" for sports; the article will be deleted anyway. Therefore, I choose to Ignore the Rules. Why not? Everyone else seems to.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the roughly 20 AfDs in the past 10 days on college football rivalries and individual games, I voted "delete" on all of them. That said, this is the one where my conclusion is weakest. There is significant coverage of this rivalry in national media outlets, at least of the historic rivalry as it existed from the 1930s to 1960s, and I'm probably more on the fence than when I initially voted to delete. I believe Paul's "keep" vote is understandable given the coverage. This one lands somewhere in the gray area where reasonable minds can differ. Cbl62 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the coverage as being significant. A passing mention of a rivalry isn't enough. I would expect a more in-depth feature of a rivalry if it is significant. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON there's no need to keep repeating arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am changing my vote from "Delete" to "Neutral." As noted above, I've voted "Delete" on all the other rivalry articles, but this one is a borderline case. While it does not rise to the level of the truly classic rivalries, it does have some of the characteristics of a true rivalry, including: (i) coverage as a rivalry in national news outlets (sampling cited above); (ii) longevity (series dates back a century or more); (iii) regularity (with the two schools now in the same division of the Big Ten, the series is played every year); (iv) traveling trophy (albeit new and somewhat lame); (v) major programs with storied histories (both schools have won multiple national championships); and (vi) geographic proximity (not bordering states, but pretty close). Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 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 12:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research done by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Asato[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Previously deleted at AfD for the same reason. andy (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asato is considered a notable politician by local (in both Norfolk and London) and national newspapers. She is described as a leading Blairite and was until recently the director of Progress, the leading Blairite think tank.Rathfelder (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the vice-chair of the Electoral Reform Society, a long established and well known body, that really ought to be lead sentence of the article.

Comment: That's a one-year elected position as part of a council of 15 people with no executive authority. I see no evidence that she passes WP:POLITICIAN. andy (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who has received significant press coverage". I've referenced a dozen articles in various journals. There are plenty more.Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 December 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, Michig (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having glanced at the references, I'm not seeing any direct coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now removed the reference to a Guardian Diary piece that was quoted as comparing her and her late husband to Burton and Taylor, because it also described them as "nauseating". I really doubt if this establishes notability! andy (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep She's been doing not very glamorous work, paying her dues, but despite that has received a surprising amount of media coverage as a spokesperson for this or that. A weak keep, on the basis of the coverage. There is no lack of sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to look carefully at those sources. Almost all of them are either her local paper or in-house Labour sources, and many relate to the fact that she is about to be / is now / is no longer a candidate, something which is not notable per se. andy (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyjsmith and Margin1522: - Agree with andy. There is no lack of mentions. But those mentions are in really really low quality sources. I think you'd have to be feeling really generous to call that a keep. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those are in-house Labour sources (arguably including the Guardian, where she has published a number of articles under her own name). You'd have to be a political junkie to be interested in some of them. So I wouldn't object if the article were deleted and then recreated if she won the election. I do think the criteria give too much weight to elected politicians. There are many actors in modern politics. If she were swept into office by external factors like the economy, she would still be the same person. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources. Of the sources in the article, I'd only count LabourList and Progress as remotely "in-house Labour" (in that while neither has any official connection with the Labour Party, both are definitely targetted at Labour Party members - and in that sense, Iain Dale probably counts as "in-house Conservative") and the Islington Tribune as unequivocally local. However, I would rather agree that, while the Eastern Daily Press is definitely a regional paper, this is somewhat compromised in this case as Norwich itself (where it is published) has only two parliamentary constituencies and Asato is standing in one of them; and that, while the Guardian, the Independent and the Evening Standard are all reliable sources, we generally do not accept contributor CVs (one of the Guardian citations) as contributing to notability, and the other pieces are all fairly insubstantial (the other Guardian one being a short piece from an only semi-serious gossip column, and the other two both being one-paragraph items in lists of people "you probably haven't heard of yet but may well hear of in future"). Having said all that, I'm neutral on the main question - Asato is definitely more notable than most aspiring Labour candidates, and I've been aware of her for at least ten years (but then I'm a Labour Party member). If we knew of just one full-scale profile from almost any national British paper, I'd be inclined to take it, with what is already here, as establishing notability - and I'd be unsurprised if one or more turned out to exist. However, User:Rathfelder has obviously searched fairly hard for sources already, so I'm not holding my breath on this. PWilkinson (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the criteria for inclusion discriminate against candidates. There are plenty of wikipedia articles about people less notable than her. This article is not about her candidature. I don't see why the fact that she writes articles for the Guardian should be held against her. She seems to have been treated as a spokesperson for Blairism for the last ten years. In that capacity she is noteworthy and will still be noteworthy even if not elected. Surely that is the reason for the rule about candidates. If they aren't elected will they ever be seen again? If not then they aren't noteable.Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 14 December 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 12:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy ruling out local newspapers as reliable sources, is there?Rathfelder (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please conclude this debate? The birth of her baby seems to be considered noteworthy by the Daily Telegraph. That is not a Labour source.Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as Keep because it is the only reasonable assessment of the entire discussion, but the "delete" arguments are certainly plausible and serious. Since this is, after all, a rather recent subject, I recommend revisiting the article at AfD in 3-to-6 months. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings[edit]

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

Already out of the news, and was never very prominent while it was in. By way of example, the New York Times did not consider it significant enough to send out an email news alert (in contrast the incident in Sydney or today's shooting in Pakistan) and I don't think it ever made it to the front page of the BBC News website; it was not on television news in the UK (again in contrast to Sydney and Pakistan). While the absence of such coverage is not conclusive, the presence of it is a strong indicator of notability. Shooting sprees are very common in the United States. The most notorious is probably Columbine, and the most memorable of recent times is probably the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and neither had much lasting impact; there have been dozens of school shootings and hundreds of shooting sprees since Columbine and, tragically, none of have had any lasting impact. There's no reason to believe that this will be any different, especially given that it has dropped form the headlines after less than 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really just a local news event. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSLOCAL isn't a reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a local news story clearly has bearing on notability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, if you were talking about something other than an event, you might be right. In the case of local history, or local politicians, perhaps there can be notability. However, in the case of local minor events, such as this, there isn't any per WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this event is being covered by major news networks (CNN, MSNBC) it goes beyond local news. Were Sandy Hook and Aurora just local news also? Benbuff91 14:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if newspapers are covering it, because we are not a newspaper. It matters whether it has encyclopaedic significance, and it simply doesn't. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. To people who are interesting in stories about PA and mass murders, they might disagree. Benbuff91 14:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, not "my opinion". RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the policy you so freely cite, because nothing it talks about applies to this article. Everyking (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might like to do that, Mr Journalist extraordinaire: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..."For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Everyking (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, routine reporting, like that on local crimes that have no historical significance. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. RGloucester — ☎ 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "local crime"? I assume by "local crime" you would mean "only judged significant by local standards"...the sort of thing that might make the evening news in one's town, or the local paper, right? But obviously this crime has been judged significant outside the area where it happened, as we can see just by looking at the sources. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources. Open any news page now. Do you see any WP:DIVERSE articles on this? I didn't think so. Open Google News. Note that there have been no new articles on the matter for several days. It completely fails WP:PERSISTENCE, even only a few days after it happened. One big news spike of AP articles does not make something significant, as our event notability guidelines state. Try back in 100 years. Why would someone, 100 years in the future, care about a routine crime that pales in comparison to everything else that is happening in the world at this moment? RGloucester — ☎ 04:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to still be in the headlines, and the police are looking for the suspected shooter. For example, take this CNN story from earlier today: [35] Everymorning talk 15:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Considering the manhunt is still on for the shooter, anything can happen. Until we get an important update on the story, just keep this for now in case of that. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – I wish some editors would read our event notability guidelines. In fact, given that Mr Mitchell mentioned The New York Times, I can report that this story only appeared on page A18, which is indicative of its lack of significance. First of all, WP:GEOSCOPE applies. It says that "notable events" usually have a wide impact across a wide region. This event has not had such an impact. Our event notability guidelines also require that an event have WP:DEPTH of coverage, and not just be covered in passing. One small article on page A18 of The New York Times indicates that there was no depth of coverage, even on the day after the event. Our event guidelines also require that an event have WP:LASTING effects. This event has no historical significance. It is a one-off run-of-the-mill crime. These events are quite frequent. People must remember that we are WP:NOTNEWS, and not a police blotter either. The event guidelines require diversity of coverage as well, in WP:DIVERSE. It says "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted". Clearly we do not have this diversity here, and as it says, wire reports do not show diversity of coverage. Also note WP:PERSISTENCE, which requires that "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". Of course, this "news cycle" has already passed, as this event has fallen out of the news, and never was of top importance in the world. Overall, this article fails all of our event notability criteria, and must be deleted. The above editor says we should "keep it just for now", but this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event has not fallen out of the news yet. As I type this comment it's still the 2nd story on CNN and 2nd story on google news. Byates5637 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Everytime a major mass shooting like this happens and someone writes an article about it it gets put up for deletion. Why shouldn't this stay? It's one of the biggest mass shootings of the year so far and a major news event. This story has literally been everywhere all day. And we can say all we want that "Wikipedia isn't the news" but in reality it pretty much is. If you want to delete this one then delete every wikipedia page about a mass shooting or homicide if it's "just news". This was a major news story. Benbuff91 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "major news event" that has "literally been everywhere"? Where? I don't see this on BBC front page. Do you? You know what I see on the front page? I see the killing of 132 children in Pakistan. I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia policy, but WP:NOTNEWS is one of our policies. Whether something is a "news event" irrelevant to whether we have an article on it. It must have WP:LASTING significance, WP:÷PERSISTENT coverage, and must appear in a WP:DIVERSE variety of sources in WP:DEPTH, not just as a wire piece. This does not. Even the major American newspaper, The New York Times, did not see it fit to put this story anywhere near the front page. It put it all the way back on page A18. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know your tone doesn't help at all. It was all over MSNBC, CNN, USA Today, ABC News all day yesterday. And the shooter was just found dead so the story is going to continue to get coverage. And just because it wasn't on the BBC page doesn't mean it wasn't getting extensive coverage. Benbuff91 14:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what happened yesterday. See WP:PERSISTENCE: "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopaedia article". Yes, it does matter whether it appears on the BBC, per WP:DIVERSE. It appearing on the front page of 24 hours news websites in the US does not imply diverse coverage, because each of the articles says the same thing. As the guideline says "Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability". There is no WP:DEPTH of analysis, no WP:DIVERSE coverage, no WP:PERSISTENCE, nor anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny because you see I looked up this story on BBC and there are three different articles about it, and I'm sure another one will crop up soon about the death of the perp: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30484534 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30502731 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30489801. So you're wrong that the BBC never reported on it. And yes I'm not going to argue that the even is as notible as what happened in Sydney or Pakistan, but just because one event isn't as notible as another doesn't mean it's not notible. Benbuff91 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that "the BBC never reported it". I said that it never appeared on the front page. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.com/ It's there right now, front page, about the report on finding his body, right under news. Benbuff91 15:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on the UK edition front, only on the American edition front. Regardless, it is a tiny mention, not in the top stories section. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File this exchange under "moving the goalposts". At least it was funny. Everyking (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. It isn't anyone's fault that the BBC is constantly updating their twenty-four hour news website, switching stories around on different versions of the page. As you are part of the corruption, here, I fear it isn't worth engaging with you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for intruding, but I need to make these points clear. Benbuff91, the fact that you're the one who created this article and seem to be the one most actively against the deletion of this article (exactly like you did with the 2014 Spring, Texas shooting, which you also created) doesn't really help your arguments that much. RGloucester, the fact that you seem to be the one most actively supporting the deletion of this article (which seems to be evidenced by, in my opinion, the rather pushy comments you make towards the votes of other users) doesn't help you either. The fact that the both of you are engaged in this conversation right now doesn't help either of you. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The event is a national news story covered in a wide variety of major news outlets. The story is still developing. For now it should absolutely be here. Some time after the incident ends it may be worth reassessing the lasting impact of this event in regards to it's notability. But at the time it's too early to make a judgement on that. Byates5637 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This topic shouldn't have been on the front page, but the developments about the suspect make the event more prominent than the event should have been (not). PTSD is a serious disorder among military veterans, including the suspect. Alas, the topic became front page news nationwide just to isolate the citizens from more awful events, like the Russian-Ukraine conflict or the Pakistani school attack. But there is nothing any rule can do to prevent the creation of this article. *sigh* --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't front page news on the country's newspaper of record. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shooting sprees like this over a wide area are rare and there will be enough interest to merit a good comprehensive article. As soon as this fell out of breaking news the place I would go to look for it would be wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There will be" = WP:CRYSTAL. It doesn't matter where you'd look for it. You shouldn't be looking here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You shouldn't be looking here"? Hah! I have to hand it to you. Your throw-the-objections-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks strategy is highly entertaining. Shame you can't have us all walled up like the Princes in the Tower. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look! A wayward philistine! To the conservatory, with you! If you will not accept perfection, perfection will be imposed on you. RGloucester — ☎ 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not finding some of the arguments particularly convincing; the reason this shooting got overlooked was probably down to the fact that the incidents in Sidney and Pakistan were far bigger and involved a terrorist, whilst this was one lone PTSD victim going on a rampage. Personally, I'm of the viewpoint that this sort of page should be allowed to stay initially; if the news coverage totally disappears after a few months, then it can go. It's too soon to argue there is no lasting notability... but then, it can equally be said that it is too soon for there to be evidence that it will stay notable. The argument that it never made the BBC front page is incorrect - it's there right now with this story, ~~and I trout the nominator for not actually looking before they made their AfD statement~~. Comparisons to Columbine are not helpful either; that was a high school massacre by two students, not one lone PTSD-sufferer whose illness took over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the BBC page displays different stuff depending on where one's IP locates to. Also, at the time he made the nomination, no such story appeared. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, then I apologize for being incorrect myself there - I stand by my comments about how comparing this to Columbine is unhelpful, and the rest of the statement, but will strike and tweak the wording of my initial comment as appropriate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt BBC is serving up custom pages to people based on their geographic area. Anyway I'm based out of Portland area which is about as far away from Philly as you can get, and this story is currently the front page feature on BBC. Byates5637 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I'm from Edinburgh, so when I open the page, Edinburgh news pops up. If one is from London, one gets London news. There is a separate American edition. I live in America for the time being, sadly, but I have access to both pages, though. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: This is considered one of the major news story today (featured in CNN and NY Times, for example). Sure it’s more of a local thing, but it doesn't hurt to keep it for historic purposes. After all, Wikipedia is all about keeping information about everything and anything, and this is definitely important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.50.50 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Strong keep. Large-scale massacre...whatever the reason for its occurrence, it warrants an article. Front-page news it may not have been, but it's certainly been at the top of the news feed all day today. (For what it's worth, I live outside of the Philly area, and this has been the second story on local radio all day today, behind only the massacre in Pakistan.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If there is an article about hostage crisis in which a few people died, why delete article about situation which claimed twice deaths? If you read wiki carefully, u can notice killing sprees in far more local, forgotten by mainstream media areas. I haven't noticed big media attention about capsized ferry on Tanganika which claimed at least 129 lives. Is it also a reason to delete any future article about it?--178.43.0.243 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another mass shooting. Sad, but notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep news on this reported on BBC News homepage for several days (it's still there) and a serious mass shooting. Plenty of precedents for this kind of thing, no genuinely convincing reason to delete. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:Event is pretty clear that a crime such as this needs to have some societal impact other than grief and horror. We cannot determine that YET. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Our purpose is not to cover events as they happen, but to discuss historically meaningful events in perspective. There is no way we can do that now. To the IP posting above, where did you get the idea that was Wikipedia's purpose? To the IP that mentioned that there was an article (not defined BTW) that discussed a hostage situation with less deaths, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument. To the numerous people that are here and are always here as I am at AfD's like this, if you have a problem with the policies that cover notability for events like these, why don't you take your perpetual arguments to the policy page and attempt to change it, rather than waste other editor's time having to argue this over and over at AfD's. Cause even if this gets kept now, which admittedly has been the recent trend, it will undoubtedly get renominated in a few years. I really fail to understand why people don't get that just because we hear about everything that happens nowadays, that somehow makes it important. Some guy popped a nut and killed everyone in sight. Other than to the people who were directly affected, it has no meaning. The case may have some merit to be discussed in the article on PTSD at some point in time in the future when we have had time to understand what it means, but for Pete's sake, killing has gone on ever since we had more people than Adam and Eve (literally..the first murders were in the second generation of people if you accept the Bible as history). Quantity of death ≠ significance. John from Idegon (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This other 2014 familicide doesn't have an article and had seven fatalities. "Don Spirit Wikipedia" is also a search term. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, due to substantial press coverage. Why do people nominate articles on events that are plainly notable? What a waste of time for everyone. Everyking (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Press coverage" does not equal notability, that's why. Why do people persist in this fallacy? Why do they not read our policies and guidelines, such as WP:EVENT? Why do people allow sensationalist and lowbrow articles such as this to corrupt the encylopaedia? RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sensationalist and lowbrow articles"? "Corrupting the encyclopedia"? Is this some kind of performance art you're doing here? Everyking (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in this charade, I suppose you are more suited to the late News of the World than you are to Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cause is lost, but the insults keep flying? For an idea of what RG thinks is notable, see his creation Tambourhinoceros. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Bring up something from 2011? However, you failed in one respect, which is to note that the criteria for notability of organisations are different from those for events. Regardless, the notability of that organisation has nothing to do with the notability of this shooting, so I don't know why you're playing the phone hacking game. Perhaps my mention of the News of the World was not too far off. RGloucester — ☎ 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For someone so obsessed with the "professionalism" of Wikipedia your attitude doesn't reflect what you apparently stand for. Nor do I see how an article like this is sensationalist or lowbrow. You're really grasping at straws to argue with people at this point. Benbuff91 04:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think I've ever used the word "professionalism" throughout my whole time in this God-forsaken Wikipedia, as I have a great contempt for that word. It is "sensationalist" and "lowbrow" because this article is about a crime that is of no interest in a historical sense. This article only exists as a compilation of news coverage so that people can gawk over crimes that have nothing to do with them, or with history. It is antithetical to the encyclopaedia, and I'm sure you shan't see the Britannica writing an article on it. This article fosters a parochialism that gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor crimes in small parts of the world, which does not consider their weight in relation to crimes and events elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing is not going to help anyone's arguments. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This article fails WP:EVENT. Hell, I wrote and got consensus for WP:EVENT specifically for incidents like this. It was designed in large part to solidify the idea that local events, especially ones that have no enduring notability, should not have their own article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article passes WP:GNG and EVENT. plenty of reliable sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable spree shooting with national media coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; article passes the notability guidelines. Major news event. APerson (talk!) 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A notable event, well covered and well documented. Mass murder is notable by its very nature. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. Shooting sprees are regrettably common, and naturally cause a short-term flurry of press coverage, but unless they can be shown to have some long-term significance they don't belong here. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group. Mr.Z-man 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Venture[edit]

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

Part of a series of poorly-sourced articles on subsidiaries and divisions of the Reliance Group, which are not notable enough to warrant separate pages from the main corporate one. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 2 December 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 18:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for WP:NOTPROMOTION.Vrac (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeartWays[edit]

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

Puffery piece on non-notable project/consortium. Article is heavy on "what we will do" and "managerspeak", but not on actual accomplishments. The number of references present is deceiving: 1-10 are all about the scientific background of this project, were published before this project even started, and hence don't even mention it. The rest of the references are minor (congress contributions and such) and are not independent, being authored by project participants. No independent references about this project/consortium. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created and authored by an SPA; assumed to be promotional. Also, this is a research project "in progress" and one section is "Expected impact." Notability should be re-evaluated should an actual impact occur. LaMona (talk) 22:17, 7 December 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 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus against deletion. Merge can be discussed further on article talk page. czar ⨹ 04:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle, Inc.[edit]

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

Very difficult to do searches for, since the company is named after ancient greek philosopher Aristotle, who is also sometimes cited as an ancient contributor to the origins of public relations. The Hoovers profile that is the only source cited certainly does not impart notability. 100 staff does not suggest notability from a size perspective. There is no particular claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is better content about this company in the biographical article for John Aristotle Phillips, who is probably still better known as the guy who designed a nuclear weapon for his 1976 junior paper at Princeton. In particular, there's a link there to a long 2007 Vanity Fair article about the company. [36] The Vanity Fair profile provoked a substantial comment in Wired [37] Other coverage includes a 2000 New York Times article [38] and a 2012 piece in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. So, the company is likely notable. It could be discussed whether a separate article is needed or whether it's enough to merge/redirect to John Aristotle Phillips#Aristotle, Inc.. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst merge with redirect. Looks like enough may be available to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The links that Arxiloxos shared are enough to convince me that the company is notable. Whether it should be merged ... I'm not sure, perhaps that is a question better suited for the articles' talk pages. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K kalan[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this fails WP:NOTESSAY, though it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. It's not very well written and even if it may be notable it is unsourced and seems like it uses a lot of original research in its current form. — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom per WP:TNT. — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've strickenthrough the delete !vote of nominator to avoid confusion, and as being nominator they are presumed to be in favor of deletion with their nomination rationale. They may however add addition rationale as many they want, but not !vote twice or simply more than once. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -recognized geographical places are considered to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:GEOLAND. However, the village name 'K Kalan' is quite confusing here as in 'K Kalan', 'K' seems to be abbreviation of something unknown. Searching for 'K Kalan' in Census of India official website results many entries. Looking close in census directory for any similar village name in Bijbehara tehsil in Anantnag district, the most plausible name appears to be, "Khush Roi Kalan" (census data added by original creator, also matched). I've re-written the article as a whole from this to this. It should be OK now. Nominator may want to withdraw their nomination? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've move the page to its correct title "Khush Roi Kalan". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: -I don't see a reason to relist this one. It should better have been closed early as keep per SNOW or speedy keep per SK#1 (nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think me and you counts as consensus, though. I like the improvements made to the article, but a google search reveals all that there is to know is really the census data and its coordinates, rendering it an eternal stub. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article in its current form is just coordinates and census data. If there's something to be said about the history of this place, or something else that allows it to pass WP:SIGCOV, then I'd be happy to reconsider or withdraw my nomination. — kikichugirl ^inquire 08:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikichugirl: Did you take a look at WP:GEOLAND and the sources cited in the article? -It is a 'recognized geographical place'. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laxshmipur[edit]

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

There is no city by the name as Laxshmipur in Odisha. Moreover no hits on Google news.May even be a hoax. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - There is a page named Lakshmipur (Odisha Vidhan Sabha constituency) which redirects to Laxmipur (Odisha Vidhan Sabha constituency). I can also find references to a Laxmipur village in Odisha [39]. It is possible this article is about that village and the title is misspelt, in which case it should be renamed and refs added. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - In that case I think it better to be redirected to the constituency rather than creating a separate article for the village as the village is not notable enough to have a separate article. The spelling differences might be because of the difference between colloquial and English language difference. So it might be better to redirect.Lakun.patra (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -@Lakun.patra: Notability of 'legally recognized populated geographical places' is determined by WP:GEOLAND, so the village 'Lakshmipur' is "notable". In the meanwhile, I've expanded, renamed and added refs to the article (diff.). I think, you should consider withdrawing your nomination now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anupmehra's improvement of the article and addition of sources which confirm the spelling of Lakshmipur (which is what the article should be moved to once the AfD is closed). Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nomination Thanks for your efforts.Lakun.patra (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 21:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brown (politician)[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion. The subject is not notable. It is not common for local councillors to have their own article. Brown's only 'claim to fame' is being included on a 'Pink List', which is not a sufficient achievement (many others on the same list do not have articles). 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 07:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between what's cited and a cursory gsearch I'm seeing sufficient/significant coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep being a councillor isn't notability, but Sarah Brown does have a national profile for her work in gender issues. I'm on the other side of the country and I know of her. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She's clearly notable, especially as she was, for three years, the only out trans person who was an elected representative. Regardless of that, I believe that the activism she did regarding the same-sex marriage bill – including her MP mentioning her situation on the floor of the Commons – also shows notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion per WP:TRIVIA. Most of these awards are not notable by themselves. We should avoid creating long, vague lists. Any relevant awards can be merged elsewhere. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 07:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there might be some less notable awards and honors, there are more than enough left over to justify an article. TRIVIA doesn't apply here at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many biographical articles have an "Awards and honors" section near the end. In this case, that section would be too long and so it was split out. The same has been done for a number of other political figures, see for example List of honors and awards received by Bill Clinton, List of awards and honors received by Ted Kennedy, List of awards received by Al Gore, List of awards and nominations received by Wesley Clark, List of awards and honors received by George McGovern, List of honors and awards received by Jimmy Carter, List of awards and honors received by Lech Wałęsa, Awards and decorations received by Leonid Brezhnev, List of awards received by Charles, Prince of Wales, and so on. And when it comes to Category:Lists of awards by actor and Category:Lists of awards by musician these split-out articles number well into the hundreds. As for trivia, I disagree; you get could a good idea of the arc of her career and what issues she has been most concerned with and what groups she has been most popular among just by reading this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly reasonable spin-off article by WP policy and practice. Otherwise there would be a constant turmoil on her main article about what to include or leave off. Borock (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. It's a valid split. If it had a handful of awards from bloggers and nothing else, you'd have a point. It would overwhelm the parent article if it were merged, and there's no reason to think that notable awards are trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Coalition for Equity and Educational Quality[edit]

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

No valid references, group no longer seems to be in existence. Google search only points to WP (and references which use WP - like digplanet) as the only hits. Onel5969 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 14:14, 8 December 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, cyberdog958^Talk 06:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vargas tragedy. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 20:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orion (dog)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This dog is not known for anything but this one event. If people aren't notable for a single event per WP:BLP1E then surely dogs aren't either. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the article about the event that the dog is known for. cyberdog958^Talk 07:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Vargas tragedy. Only notable for the one event. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vargas tragedy. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vargas tragedy, especially given the recognition that the dog received for his rescue efforts. Obviously the text in the Vargas tragedy should not include this entire text, but it should be edited down to at most a paragraph to prevent undue emphasis. --Bejnar (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LG Williams[edit]

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

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

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

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

The LG Williams article was created by a user who has engaged in sock puppetry, attempted to make the artist appear to be more notable than he is, and a very likely conflict of interest scenario. One of the ways has been to use letters to the editor and blog postings as sources for content. Based upon google news, google books, HighBeam Research, and Questia searches, it's very difficult to find sources for the subject, except for his own essentially self-published books (PCP Press). The article was created several years ago (2012) and deleted due to notability issues. Since then, I read that the artist worked as a realtor in Hawaii for at least two years.

The article was deleted in 2006 as part of the PROD process and in 2012 per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams and earlier this year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Williams (2nd nomination)--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Too few quality reliable sources to make a solid case for keeping, but perhaps just enough, together with the numerous lightweight sources, to pass. Ewulp (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost on the basis of process alone. This should have gone to WP:DRV where changes since the last AFDs could be considered by the community and approval given (or not) for the recreation of this article. Instead, serial sock-puppeteers simply recreated it (twice) and have filled it with ref-spam in an attempt to make it look legit. But many are older than 2 years and would have been available during the last discussions. The article would seem to suffer from the same problems that it did in the past. The community supported (in my view) salting the first time around but that wasn't done (for whatever reason). The sources provided are much the same as last time - self-promotional nonsense from a full-time-real-estate-agent / part-time-artist. They are headlines in the same way that the guys from Jackass get headlines for stapling their anatomy to things. Yeah, it's "coverage" but seriously... read the actual articles... they're all about how he did something, it won't work, but it was a bit funny, what was his name again? St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though I agree it was a fairly detestable article created for the wrong purpose (though now significantly improved by a couple of experienced editors). I don't see much new relaible coverage since the 2012 deletion at AfD, but if I had participated in 2012 I would have probably said 'weak keep' too, based on the small number of in-depth reliable news articles. His 1999 exhibitions in California attracted attention [40] [41] and he has exhibited internationally, receiving significant attention in Bahrain and Japan. The long list of 'Further reading' doesn't fool me, I'm afraid, I fully expect it to be brief mentions or no mentions at all (based on the tactics in the rest of the article). Sionk (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the artBahrain piece isn't about an international exhibit in Bahrain, it's just overseas coverage of his let's-pretend-to-sell-off-public-property-for-a-lark stunt. Its exactly the coverage I was referring to above. We can't seriously consider that "significant coverage" of the artist can we? It doesn't tell us much of anything about him. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LG Williams work is insignificant. None of his pieces are in a public collection. The little he made hasn't been presented in a notable venue, nor included in a notable exhibition. There is nothing about him in national libraries. --Newnewbi (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

Strong Delete: I could not agree more with the insightful -- despite his or her sole purpose -- editor: Williams is detestable. Forget all what you read -- its all pretend and fake like the excellent editor said. Williams is clearly a PT Barnum. He has tricked EVERYONE on Wikipedia into thinking he is notable when he is not notable. I am so happy with the "excellent editors" who deleted all of his fake real exhibitions and fake verifiable publications. Thank you excellent editors for catching this WP:Hoax! Small wonder everyone hates Williams like Claude Clousky and all the 'Forever Professors'! The last letter to the editor is unimaginable -- what hutzpah! In addition, I think his artistic treatment of men and women art curators is contemptible:

For example, the letter to the editor (mentioned specifically above by the excellent women's art editor) treats men curators with contempt: Williams wrote (and the Village Voice editors vetted, sanctioned and then published this egregious criticism of as remarkable curator -- how horrible!), "Lawrence Rinder is a "lousy," "tepid," and "irresponsible" curator" -- Larry curated a Whitney Biennial, so how could Williams say that? AND The Village Voice editors publish it? It doesn't make any sense1?! What artistic insolence! Who does Williams think he is?
But, Williams treats woman curators even more grotesquely: See esp. UACAWSACCADB: Up-And-Coming Artist Who Stares At Curators, Collectors, and Dealers Boobs. Horrible!
PS: Claude Clousky is #1! Do not believe what Le Huffington Post wrote about him! --Chan12345 (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, you must admit he's having the desired impact if people (or person) are outraged enough to create Wikipedia accounts to berate him. Artists have used shock tactics for many many decades, to attract attention or as part of their art practise. We're not here to judge whether his tactics are pleasant or ethical, but whether they have indeed attracted wider attention. Sionk (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk, I suspect that's a (very) strong supporter of the artist, dripping with sarcasm. Childish sarcasm always seems to get lost in discussions like these. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it that way at all. It's pretty clear that the artist has done unusual things for attention - which by its nature is going to find supporters and make others uncomfortable or mad (no value judgment here). That's not really the point of this discussion - it is whether the artist is notable. That's what I got from Sionk's discussion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

2U CaroleHenson & 2U Sionk: Super ★ editor Stalwart111 just understand, prob will never understasnd. This is about fakery and Williams' is all about art fakery. Luckily for us 3 this LG Williams article doesn't representz WP:NPV this is about WP:Notability. And we know you can't prove WP:Notability with an asrticle with all the notasbility deleted cuz we know what is notability. Like the editor said in the talk page: "I don't like LG Williams art criticism, so I just deleted it all." Thast is the Wiki-editorial spirit if ever there was one for this LG Williams page! The question is notability and we can't have thast on this pagee with a person and publishers who denigrate today's american curators likee Williams' letter to the editor. Even though per WP:NPV, the nationally ranked publicastion which was 100% notable and verifiable and vetted by the Village Voice editors -- knew Williams would treat men curators with contempt: Williams wrote and I repeat (and the Village Voice editors vetted, sanctioned and then published this egregious criticism of as remarkable curator -- how horrible!), "Lawrence Rinder is a "lousy," "tepid," and "irresponsible" curator" -- Laarry curated an amazing Whitney Biennial, so how could Williams say that? AND The Village Voice editorss published it too? Prob the Village Voice editors believed in WP:NPV? That is just not right. It doesn't make any sense!?! Why would any editor be WP:NPV? What artistic insolence! Who does Williams think he is? I am so glad that this excellent editor of the LG Williams article cites this (Letter To The Editor) again and again as an great example of her editing skills and an example of another Williams hoax and disrespect of america's premiere american curators -- even though (to repeat) it was vetted, sanctioned and then published in the Village Voice by their legendary editorial team. I am so glad this is NOT in the article for people to read. If it were in the article the article would be WP:NPV an we cannot have that with PT Barnums like Williams. Cheers 2 U excellent editors...--Chan12345 (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

Firm Delete: Reading this thread is inspiring. I can see why many of you are ★ excellent-editors. You cannot be fooled, ever. Actually, all of the editors present in this discussion are simply here to provide excellent learning opps in a good-faith setting, multi-cultural setting, like my church. I would be the first one to thank all of you. Only such editors could truly evaluate postmodern art by artists living southern california. The notably question raised here, again-and-again-is the question for this article, period, even though almost every notable citation and reference has been properly deleted from the article, by seasoned experienced excellent wiki art editors. Let me list what has been DELETED by the excellent editors, thank you:

UnNotable (and fake) Art Publishing Record:
1. Williams has published the companion book for one of the most important, canonical art texts in the western world Gardner's Art Through The Ages, entitled, Drawing Upon Art > ISBN-10:0495572365 | ISBN-13:9780495572367 [42]. Of course this reference was deleted by the excellent editors.
2. He has published over 75 books all self-published. Why self published? West Coast artists like Wallace Berman and Wally Hedrick hated the corporate establishment. That is why Williams was included in the Rat Bastard Protective Association, in the first place. It is in the west coast art tradition to avoid corporate publishers at all cost. However, these self-published book were deleted from the record despite WP:SELF which states: "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves."
UnNotable (and fake) Scholarship Record: Dozens upon dozens of documents from publications across the globe:
1. San Francisco Chronicle
2. San Francisco Bay Guardian
3. La Stampa
4. Artforum
5. Art Papers
6. Of course, almost of these (and many many more) were deleted by excellent editors like this: "based on the poor quality (and I will deem if they are good or poor) of most of sources (I should know I deleted them myself) by WP:FRAUD Williams provided since the beginning, I am removing the items i.e., because I didn't have spare time to verify so I just delete"
UnNotable (and fake) Art Critic & Art Historical Testimonies:
1. Kenneth Baker
2. Donald Preziosi: I am thrilled to read that all of you excellent editors know Oxford Distinguished Professor Preziosi is working for LG Williams and an off-line sockpuppet. Why else would this distinguished art historian write about Williams? Williams' tricked Preziosi or paid Preziosi, obviously. See: Page 85-87 - and notice Williams is the only artwork in the entire book. And, I am so glad the excellent editor said, and I quote,"I didn't have time to read or check, so I just deleted". That is how WP:Hoaxes should be treated by editors in Wikipedia!
3. Glen Helfand
4. Thomas Frangenberg and dozens more.
UnNotable Solo Exhibition Record
1. 20 or 30? solo exhibitions and art-fairs across the Globe since 1985. Bless the excellent editor for deleting most of these WP:HOAXES. But I would like to point out that one editor (who knew little about contemporary art) was duped when he stated the following: Williams recent exhibitions look very legitimate, and his inclusion in a curated show in 2013 with the following is pretty impressive:
2. Abraham Cruzvillegas
3. Seth Price
4. Hans Op de Beeck
5. Maurizio Cattelan
6. Obviously, the excellent european curators we part of the hoax -- even if the exhibition was in Lithuania -- 4500 miles from Los Angeles where Williams lives the life of PT Barnum
UnNotable Group Exhibition Record
1. Tens of dozens of group exhibitions and art-fairs across the Globe since 1985. Bless the excellent editor for deleting most of these WP:HOAXES.
A Thirty-Year Record of UnNotable Exhibition (and fakery) in Art
1. His 25 year retrospective wasn't in the USA, it was held in Milan, Italy. American's know art; that is why is was in Italy. Americans know PT Barnum; that is why it was in Italy. And, Europeans don't know art, that is why the two biggest art venues are in Europe: Venice Biennial and Art Basel - Europeans don't know about Williams' WP:FRAUDS.
Tens of dozens of UnNotable WP:BLOGS posting and reviews that appeared on the web since 2000: Thank you Jesuz, Almost all of these hoaxes were DELETED from the present article too by excellent editors
1. ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Many art news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may are acceptable in Wikipedia as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
2. I am simply thrilled that one particular excellent editor was not fooled by Williams - they were nice enough to delete all the blog citations on her own good-faith excellent-editing / private-eye skills - despite WP:BLOGS
My Favorite Good-Faith Excellent-Editor Comment By Far:
1. Deleting veteran west coast art critic Glen Helfand critical observations because a certain excellent editors imagine the distinguished, long-time, veteran art critic (a) does not know he is saying and be (b) he doesn't know how to write: Williams ranks among "some of the most interesting contemporary artists, those who can address or find their way through the computer-assisted malady we call 'image overload'".^[1]

Thank you excellent wiki editors. Only good-faith will keep Wiki free from WP:Hoaksters like Williams -- Delete LG Williams asap! --Bald eagle babe (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After User:xxxartxxx who created the LG Williams article was blocked as a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppet User:Art4em, he immediately returned to continue editing the article as User:Ratbastardassn and was blocked again. In this diff on the sockpuppeter Ratbastardassn's talk page he proposes adopting "Chan" as his next user ID, and now here's the new single-purpose editor Chan12345 arguing with evident sarcasm for deletion of the article ... followed by Bald eagle babe's sockdologer written—like Chan12345's posting—in the familiar style of Art4em/xxxartxxx. Although I indicated above (and on Talk:LG Williams) that I lean slightly towards a "keep", if the eventual outcome of this AfD is a decision to delete, I would second the proposal of Stalwart111 to WP:SALT the article, or this tiresome stunt will surely continue. Ewulp (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

Salt: I could not agree more with the editors: upon my full and careful evaluation one can clearly see that A. Williams is a "detestable" artist, and B. as a result of all the "detestable" deletions from the "excellent editors" who did not follow WP:NPV, this article has become "a fairly detestable article". It should be deleted not because it is not notable, which by all standards clearly is established 10 years ago, but to prevent anyone senior wiki editor from seeing such detestable non-WP:NPV actions / edits from "excellent editors". See for example in Wiki, "Editors must present material with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All editors must adhere to NPOV. All articles must adhere to NPOV." This tiresome bias against LG Williams is irrational, and should not be visible.

See another clear biased editorial statement above: "Yeah, it's "coverage" but seriously..." Here we have clear admission of notability: "yeah, its coverage"; followed by a clear evidence of WP:NPV violations by the following statement "but seriously". This last comment is a clear violation of WP:NPV: Editors must present material with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All editors must adhere to NPOV. All articles must adhere to NPOV. In summary, these constant, non-WP:NPV actions should come to an end and be hidden away: SALT.
However tiresome this point may be, let me illustrate my point with the facts. Take a look at this list of notable sources. This list makes a complete mockery of many non-WP:NPV editor comments above, for example: "Too few quality reliable sources to make a solid case for keeping." On the other hand, said editor cannot learn notability because of another "excellent editor's" non WP:NPV and clear WP:BIAS actions, maintained deletions from the article to prevent any WP:Fair and educated reading. I don't blame her because Williams is a despicable artist, she (editorially) undertook despicable actions. Here is the citation list in full, which includes only the artist's notable citations, meaning this list does not include his own exhibition record, publishing record, and criticism record, etc:

2013-14: Art, Religion and Amnesia: Routledge Press, Los Angeles I’m Yours.com, National Lithuanian Radio and Television, Lzinios.Lt: Kūrėjų Pastangos Laike Ir Erdvėje, Kulturpolis.Lt: New Shows at Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC): Journey of the Self in The Contemporary Art World, ArtNews.lt, Kulturpolis.Lt: Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC) Parodą Dienraštyje Reklamuos Menininko Karikatūros, WhoWoreItBetter.com, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Night Gallery – Night Gallery Papers IV, Parc du Domaine les Crayères, Hyperallergic.com, GrandBag, Java Magazine
2012: Art Tribune, Seeking People, Purple Diary, Art Text Pics, Glass Magazine, Yiaos, Gloria Maria Gallery / Super Window Project, Graza.It, Japan Times, TYO Magazine, Le Dernier des Blogs, Mousse Magazine 35, ArtInfo.fr, Le Huffington Post, Art-O-Rama, Exponaut.com, Metropolis Magazine (Tokyo), Grazia.it, ARCO Madrid 2012
2011: La Stampa, Grazia.it, ArtInfo.com (International Edition), Japan Times, Tokyo Art Beat, Time Out Tokyo, ArtInAsia.com, Rhizome.org, Art Fag City, Le Huffington Post, FlashArtOnline.it, Graza.it, Artforum Magazine, Vernissage.TV, Kunst-Magazin.com, Tokyo Art Beat, Tokyo Weekender Magazine
2010: Artforum, Yerba Buena Center For The Arts.com, Paintwork Blogspot.com, HuffingtonPost.com, PresentMagazine.com
2009: Sacramento Bee
2008: Maui Weekly
2005: Los Angeles Times
2004: Honolulu Advertiser
2003: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco Bay Guardian, East Bay Express, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle
2002: San Francisco Weekly, East Bay Express, Village Voice, Rat Bastard Protective Association: LG Williams, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star Bulletin
1999: Daily Californian, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Californian, Artweek, Art Issues, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Guardian
1994: The Wall Street Journal, Peralta Community College Television, USU Statesman, Herald Journal, The Desert News
1993: Artweek
1992: San Francisco Chronicle, Modesto Bee, Focus, California State Exposition, Berkeley Voice, Sacramento Bee
1991: Palo Alto Cultural Center, Peninsula Times Tribune, Palo Alto Weekly, San Jose Mercury News
1990: Palo Alto Times
1989: San Jose Mercury News
1988: Davis Enterprise
1987: San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise

Again, I propose SALT to prevent any record of this clear violation of WP:NPV. --Luv my range rover (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Luv my range rover: Bald eagle babe: Chan12345: these issues have been discussed in the talk page.--Newnewbi (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

Comment: I have read all the comments in the so-called "Talk Page" concerning LG Williams and found the discussion miserable overall. What do I mean by miserable? Well, almost all of the discussion is in violation of one Wiki guideline or another: WP:Inappropriate, WP:FTN, WP:Bias, WP:NPV, WP:Blog, WP:SelfPublish, et al. Williams' WP:Notability is well-established and beyond WP:NPV reproach (See previous list / comment above).

The reason for my "DELETE" vote is this: at a later time, it will be clear to any experienced WP:NPV editor that this "Deletion Debate" and "Talk Page" will be viewed to be in violation of comprehensive editorial WP:Bias. Until such time, LG Williams should not continue to be open to abuse, harassment, and hostility. This is just the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. See esp all of your commentary:
WP:FTN "the Japan Times reference we know is misinformed" -- Newnewbi (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:Inappropriate "pictures of faceless bikini-clad women" -- Newnewbi (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, this article should be deleted because of clear editorial bias and reposted with knowledgable WP:NPV editorial supervision --Luv my range rover (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected continued sockpuppet (copied from above)

Comment: After User:xxxartxxx who created the LG Williams article was blocked as a sockpuppet of the blocked sockpuppet User:Art4em, he immediately returned to continue editing the article as User:Ratbastardassn and was blocked again. In this diff on the sockpuppeter Ratbastardassn's talk page he proposes adopting "Chan" as his next user ID, and now here's the new single-purpose editor Chan12345 arguing with evident sarcasm for deletion of the article ... followed by Bald eagle babe's sockdologer written—like Chan12345's posting—in the familiar style of Art4em/xxxartxxx. Although I indicated above (and on Talk:LG Williams) that I lean slightly towards a "keep", if the eventual outcome of this AfD is a decision to delete, I would second the proposal of Stalwart111 to WP:SALT the article, or this tiresome stunt will surely continue. Ewulp (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems quite clear that the Xxxartxxx / Art4em / Ratbastardassn etc. sockpuppetry had continued. Input in this discussion from Luv my range rover, Bald eagle babe, and Chan12345 makes it very difficult to sort out the true votes.
I suggest collapsing at least the "rant" part of the discussions that are essentially duplications of earlier discussions on the article talk page, much of which was archived. I'm not sure of the process for managing suspected sockpuppets in AfD discussions. If there's something else I need to do, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

@Drmies: may I ask you assistance to please try to stop rogue editor CaroleHenson from collapsing discussions again-and-again to hide her bias. Just like you did here: [43] 01:43, 29 November 2014‎ Drmies (→‎This Talk Page: i see no reason for this collapsing). It is editors like this that the recent article in Slate.com is warning everyone against. --Luv my range rover (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to bring up the issues of reliable sources, reopen discussions about why content/sources were removed, and other concerns, the article talk page is the place to do it. This discussion should be focused on whether to keep or delete the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no self respect? Meaning, did you or did you not write this contempt first? "…the "rant" part of the discussions" --CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Do not collapse my commentary which proves bias for all to read. Your contempt WP:NPV and clear WP:Bias and ignorance on many topics, such as WP:Blog and WP:SelfPublish is typical of the type explored in this recent Slate.com article. ::*Without a clear view of WP:Notability which I have listed above as a list and not as a rant, how do you expect any fair-minded editors to see your bias, and thus weigh in intelligibly upon the discussion?
Again @Drmies: may I ask you assistance to please try to stop rogue editor CaroleHenson from collapsing discussions again-and-again to hide her bias. Just like you did here: [44] 01:43, 29 November 2014‎ Drmies (→‎This Talk Page: i see no reason for this collapsing). --Luv my range rover (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)It is editors like this that the recent article in Slate.com is warning everyone against.[reply]

Fine, I left a reply on your talk page about the continued practice of adding lots of content that is off-target for the forum - and has already been much discussed on the now on the archived article talk page and talk page. You (see SPI) have been asked by other users to please keep your comments on-point and succinct. It's not worth getting into an edit war over.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine indeed! I reject again your biased, condescending, and backhanded apology and charge of "off-target comments." But thank you for keeping the notable material VISIBLE. And, again, thank you for leaving your biases un-addressed and uncontested. Why did not not address them, because they are inexcusable. Again, I am addressing the charge or THE TARGET (whatever nonsense that is):

You have attempted (in the article) to make the artist appear to be less notable than he is, and this is very likely a WP:Bias and WP:NPV scenario
MID-CAREER CONTEMPORARY ARTIST's are not found in: google news, HighBeam Research, and Questia searches. Wake up: This is a 21st century artist! And, moreover, where in Wikipedia does it say LG Williams must be in HighBeam Research for Christ's sake. Show me that?
There are, however, 50 or so books on your precious Google Books. And, per WP:SELFPUBLISH they can be listed. Please put them back in the article as a sign of good-faith and admission of your WP:Ignorance or WP:Bias!!! In fact redress all the WP:Biases leved against you so people can make an informed decision. Why will you not do that? Because of WP:Bias and WP:NPV.
There are 100 +/- notable sources which you have DELETED because of WP:Bias and WP:NPV: Art, Religion and Amnesia: Routledge Press, Los Angeles I’m Yours.com, National Lithuanian Radio and Television, Lzinios.Lt: Kūrėjų Pastangos Laike Ir Erdvėje, Kulturpolis.Lt: New Shows at Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC): Journey of the Self in The Contemporary Art World, ArtNews.lt, Kulturpolis.Lt: Klaipėdos Kultūrų Komunikacijų Centro (KCCC) Parodą Dienraštyje Reklamuos Menininko Karikatūros, WhoWoreItBetter.com, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Los Angeles I’m Yours, Night Gallery – Night Gallery Papers IV, Parc du Domaine les Crayères, Hyperallergic.com, GrandBag, Java Magazine, Art Tribune, Seeking People, Purple Diary, Art Text Pics, Glass Magazine, Yiaos, Gloria Maria Gallery / Super Window Project, Graza.It, Japan Times, TYO Magazine, Le Dernier des Blogs, Mousse Magazine 35, ArtInfo.fr, Le Huffington Post, Art-O-Rama, Exponaut.com, Metropolis Magazine (Tokyo), Grazia.it, ARCO Madrid 2012, La Stampa, Grazia.it, ArtInfo.com (International Edition), Japan Times, Tokyo Art Beat, Time Out Tokyo, ArtInAsia.com, Rhizome.org, Art Fag City, Le Huffington Post, FlashArtOnline.it, Graza.it, Artforum Magazine, Vernissage.TV, Kunst-Magazin.com, Tokyo Art Beat, Tokyo Weekender Magazine, Artforum, Yerba Buena Center For The Arts.com, Paintwork Blogspot.com, HuffingtonPost.com, PresentMagazine.com, Sacramento Bee, Maui Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Honolulu Advertiser, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco Bay Guardian, East Bay Express, San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Weekly, East Bay Express, Village Voice, Rat Bastard Protective Association: LG Williams, Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star Bulletin, Daily Californian, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Californian, Artweek, Art Issues, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, Peralta Community College Television, USU Statesman, Herald Journal, The Desert News, Artweek, San Francisco Chronicle, Modesto Bee, Focus, California State Exposition, Berkeley Voice, Sacramento Bee, Palo Alto Cultural Center, Peninsula Times Tribune, Palo Alto Weekly, San Jose Mercury News, Palo Alto Times, San Jose Mercury News, Davis Enterprise, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Davis Enterprise
Therefore it is NOT it's very difficult to find sources for the subject -- it is only hard to find in the LG Williams article because you deleted it by your own whim and WP:Bias! - which many of us have clearly demonstrated.
Put an end to your Bias and non-NPV and let's end this nonsense abuses that Slate.com recently profiled.--Luv my range rover (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I raised a sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 13 December 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, slakr^\ talk / 05:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - Appears to be sufficient sources to satisfy WP:BIO, even if not a slam dunk. It looks like this and the first AfD have been attended by an unusual number of SPAs. Could anyone provide a brief 1-2 sentence summary of why this is controversial? Best I can figure is it contained a great deal of content insufficiently supported by reliable sources and some people object to that material being removed and/or the way it was removed? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I struck my weak keep vote and did not replace it with another. Without having enough time to really scrutinize the sourcing, given the concerns raised here and at the first AfD I don't feel comfortable weighing in with a !vote at this time. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, it's "controversial" only because supporters of the subject have tried to use WP as a means to promote the subject. Rather than a neutral, well-sourced article (which I'm not entirely convinced can be done anyway), supporters (probably only one supporter with multiple accounts, judging from the SPI) have complained about the removal of ref-spam screaming "bias" and then coming here to argue (sarcastically) for deletion on the basis that the subject wouldn't want to be associated with an article that doesn't promote him anyway. It's all silly, self-aggrandising, overly-sensitive-artist-type nonsense. Your analysis is pretty close to accurate I'd say. The best source I could find described the person in question as a part-time-artist/part-time-real-estate-agent. Says it all really. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

I enjoyed your reading your in-depth summary and analysis. And, I enjoy reading the philistine, uneducated, and biased, "Says it all really," comment. Forgive me excellent editor, may I ask you what does your comment mean precisely, given that anyone can see from the list of your last 500 contributions not one of them concern Contemporary Art In Los Angeles [45]? Basically, I would say, "that about says it all" - you have no idea what you are talking about, period. Although I find LG Williams' art despicable, the bias by wiki-editors is more absurdist, in the poor sense. I doubt you would know that Francis Bacon made his living as a gambler; Andy Warhol as a designer; Giorgio Morandi as a high school art teacher; Marcel Duchamp taught tennis. Or would you prefer, I go and take down Jesus, Buddha and Diogenes of Sinope - to name just a few - wiki articles because they were homeless and DIDN'T have a part-time realty job? Your comment is clear indication of your overall ignorance, ignorance of the subject specifically - moreover its absurd given his counter-cultural artist background (how did he hold a part-time job at all? were his employers like UC Berkeley, UC Davis, USC, and ASU et al completely nuts? Here is the link to the Slate.com article for your review and edification - which about says it all. I am certain LG Williams is laughing at this on-going charade, perhaps for his next exhibition in Berlin.--Luv my range rover (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued in favour of keeping plenty of modern artists at AFD. Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't rely on my expert opinion (or lack of it) but on what reliable sources say about a subject and what community consensus says about a subject's capacity to meet our inclusion criteria. The sources say what they say; your disagreement with them is irrelevant. The aim here is to build a consensus for keeping or deleting something. Sarcasm, insults, sock-puppetry and silly claims of "bias" get you no closer to that goal. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you're an Einstein, Stalwart. But, forgive me, let me point out to you (and the others) that this discussion concerns a contemporary artist, not as you say, "Modern" artist. You, again, prove you have no idea what you are talking about: please go and find "plenty of other modern artists" who need your special brands of [sic] expertise. --Luv my range rover (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: contemporary art isn’t at stake in this discussion. The debate is about whether or not Wikipedia should keep an article written by sockpuppets[46][47] concerning a living person who tries with no success to draw attention to himself. (The fact checking detailed on the talk page has shown the list each sockpuppet has repeatedly pasted above doesn't establish LG Williams notability.) --Newnewbi (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It's hard to sort out if we have consensus for "Weak keep", "Delete" or "Delete and salt". If we don't delete and salt, then it seems that the article will need to be continually watched to monitor added article content and deal with uncivil conversations since issues with sockpuppets and use of non-reliable sources dates back six or so years when the first article was deleted. It seems like its an incredibly ineffective use of resources - and essentially condoning uncivil, filibustering behavior regarding a marginally or non-notable subject.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hefland, Glen (July 14, 1999). "Art: LG Williams at the Wirtz". San Francisco Bay Guardian. Retrieved November 11, 2014.

Delete: The subject's notability was never properly established by the chief contributor/sock operator Xxxartxxx (aka Art4em). Rather than take steps to properly establish the subject's notability, the user preferred instead to engage in bombastic diatribes, while belittling editors who were attempting to manage the article and to find any evidence that the subject was notable. The whole article reeked of promotion, and had I suspected before CaroleHenson and the other fine editors began renovating it, I would have nommed it for speedy delete under G5. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been established; based on reliable sources he fails WP:ARTIST. Passing mentions like Osuna, who is also showing works by Soshi Mastunobe and L.G. Williams. don't do much more that verify showings in international markets. Given more articles like the one in The Japan Times would go towards establishing that he has won significant critical attention. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious duck
Keep: this whole process has been a sham to williams --Alohasloha808 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Obviously there are SPAs heavily invested in keeping this non-notable subject that's already been deleted off multiple times. I say let's salt the freaking earth and have done with the farce once and for all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Recycling Association[edit]

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

Company is notable for one event only which was that an article was written about it in the Vancouver Sun in 2013, which was about as far as the story went also (the incident went to court and ERA were not found liable) - this can be discounted due to WP:ILLCON. Can only find press releases otherwise for all information present in the article (if you'd like to see my full review of the current sources, it can be found on the talk page). There is no widespread coverage outside the press releases the company seems to endlessly pump out. A version with better sourcing (with no press releases) can be found here and I don't believe the article can be expanded further than that. Nik thestunned 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this topic. One reason that nikthestunned is also agreed that one revision of this page is ok. Second reason is that I did full rewrite of this page but he had editwar with me and page was locked. He said he had concern with every reference in the article in his long list of concerns. In same section I have given answer to every concern he had. There were too many concerns in one list and I had to answer them all so that debate became too long. When his revision was restored he stopped replying to my concerns and stopped participating on talkpage. I made one attempt with AdventurousMe to do create consensus and do mutual edit. We made some compromise I agreed with AdventurousME's cut back and he also helped me to make it much neutral. So after that I have proposed my draft and cutback data to make compromise consensus edit. Nikthestunned did not participate. It is disruptive that he wishes to delete everything, every discussion and every edit many other users have made with much effort in the last month. See the talkpage for the effort. Deleting this page will be disruptive this is one more reason not to delete. Third reason is that look at the sources in current revision of page. Only 1 or 2 press release on reference of facts about company and many other references are in page. Fourth reason are my answers to all nikthestunned questions [48]. There were some concern but now we have corrected them. We should not delete an article because page has concern. We should make corrections. Nikthestunned revision is not anymore current but my revision is not current as well. Deleting this will undermine consensus revision also. Fifth reason look at books that have this topic [49] [50], look at more references [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Therefore, I move that this page not be deleted because this is a notable non profit. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the surface there looks like a lot of coverage, but looking at the references in detail it seems that the coverage is sparse and routine for the most part (and many references are unrelated to the company). The Wall Street Journal article caught my attention but the link is dead and it hasn't been catalogued by Archive.org. I searched for the article title and found a press release by that title. I suspect that someone has attempted to pass off a press release as the WSJ. In short, I just don't see the significant coverage to warrant inclusion per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create this article I am just a neutral user trying to improve and rewrite. This is my second rewrite with help of other users. One revision that nikthestunned likes also has 9 references. Current revision has 26 references. All references discuss ERA and its operations. I can say that routine coverage is also repeating in news and scholar (book) sources see my comment. One external source is even of December 2014 [57]. I have also provided references in my keep comment. Deleting the whole article is like throwing the baby out with bath water. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no baby here. Throw it all out. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's CORPDEPTH not CORPQUANTITY. Widefox; talk 00:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources fail short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 12:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My note This is my full draft with many more references [58]. Current revision is compromise between nikthestunned revision and my draft written by myself and user AdventurousME. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That version is worse, as consensus has established. Nik thestunned 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article created by massive sockfarm/paid editing COI per WP:COIN. Please keep comments here concise and policy / guideline based. Widefox; talk 12:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic was revised 2 times by me. That COI data was deleted by nikthestunned first and then fully revised by me it is gone now it is irrelevant to new data. This is debate of notability. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already addressed the relevance for the current article. Widefox; talk 00:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the point, WP:ILLCON says to disregard the sources covering the legal event for notability. Widefox; talk 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikthestunned happily revised to revision with one sided controversy and half truth in his Wikipedia:Battle with COI users. Now I used some more data from same source he had in that revision and he has concerns. If it was that revision then I may have voted for delete too. Now this page is getting major improvements deleting is disruptive. Do not waste efforts of users on talkpage. WP:ILLCON is only for legal event. My revision has other data too. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have google search this reference it is not controversial. This non profit is notable without controversy too. I am giving more references and arguments users may not concur with me it will not change outcome it is not voting. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reference - passing mention, so doesn't count for notability per WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH.
- [64] - a photo (ditto) and local audience fails WP:RS
- [65] - routine announcement fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- gave up at that point with the indication that producing many unsuitable RS (for WP:CORP) is indicator that no suitable ones exist.
- The fact they are a non-profit is also irrelevant per notability guideline. Widefox; talk 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are also all press releases and so fail WP:ORGIND too. Nik thestunned 09:50, 17 December 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, slakr^\ talk / 05:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been happy to try and keep the language neutral-ish while it's staying live, and work with User:TheSawTooth but I don't think there is enough evidence to establish notability - as User:Widefox has said, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Press releases aren't sources. Further, the main thing the company seems to have any coverage for - which isn't enough for CORPDEPTH - is its failure to protect data, which isn't in the current version. There are a bazillion waste disposal companies around the world, including electronics recycling specialists, and this one doesn't seem to be in any way notable. Apologies for coming late to this debate - not been on Wiki for a while. I'd suggest that those who wish to argue for its continued inclusion produce a list of the first five WP:RS - the most important ones - that can be reviewed here. None of the existing sources suggest notability, and I'd agree with User:Tchaliburton that there is no baby in this bathwater. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is on tag that it is written like advert. If you worked with me to make it neutral why is this tag on article? Nikthestunned revision was controversy of half truth. I am not happy that COI is happening with some users on this page but it does not mean that we take revenge and use the page to talk about one controversy section reject same source for one thing use it for other like BVC got the blame. If more press release data should be more short like only one line facts, we can do that. We have CORPDEPTH when so many routine sources are on topic. Every source is on this topic not on any other ERA there is no confusion. These sources are not rejected in widefox comment [66] [67] [68]. I am disagreed on this [69] reference because it is edu reference. There are 3 or 4? See more [70] [71] [72] ""Electronic Recycling Association Updates on Donations." Manufacturing Close-Up. Close-Up Media, Inc. 2014", [73]. Review book sources [74] [75]. Please review them all. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The revision you keep calling a "half truth" was a short, 2-line, article supported with reliable sources. It is by far better than the current state the article it is in, with lots of superfluous and promotional information supported by press releases and passing mentions in articles. The sources you keep pasting are not reliable and are not in depth. You've had these "sources" reviewed repeatedly, please stop re-adding the same thing. Do you have any reliable, independent sources which indicate any depth of coverage? Ones which discuss their (reportedly) illegal conduct are not appropriate and they are the only ones I, and seemingly everyone else here, can find. Nik thestunned 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer to your concerns case by case now we shall have independent review because you disagree. I am giving references because Adventurous me asked to give references for review. You keep saying there is promotion but you do not tell what is promotion? Type of equipment from press release is promotion or any sentence is saying to buy ERA computers?? You hesitate to tell what sentence is promo? You can paste any sentence it is correctable we can edit it. Promo is not infinite concern. That revision was not just half truth it had one blog in it. It also had same reference which I did edit from but you rejected it. Only one line page with few references can not be more reliable than today's revision with many references. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've added is promotional as it's superfluous information supported by press releases and inappropriate sources only. The blog source you keep mentioning was by a well respected and often referenced lawyer, an expert in her field, making it reliable per WP:BLOGS - I'll quote it for you: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Also, one line with good sources is much better than fifty with bad. Nik thestunned 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned by neutral user to stop saying everything is wrong without telling. Tell what is wrong. Name it mistakes, errors and promo data. Where is promotional wording? It was google blog I can create blog on google how will it prove it is of lawyer? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was made by @Jytdog before I provided a list of the many problems with the article at extensive length. It's here. Stop misrepresenting other editors.

RE: the blog, I'll copy what I said on the talk page: What blog are you on about? I'm talking about this one, by this lawyer - who is featured in many articles as an expert in law:[76][77]. Nik thestunned 17:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not reply to your concern? AFD admin can read our replies. I am talking about your new advert tag. It is added after that debate. What is written like advert? Any sales or marketing going on? Will you tell any example? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheSawTooth: I agree with User:AdventurousMe, User:Tchaliburton and especially User:Nikthestunned: Immediately stop misrepresenting other editors (multiple times above) and read WP:AGF. Let others give their opinions freely here. Regarding weak sources, weak points and disruption, ditto on the article and talk - see WP:OWN. This is blatant POV pushing against consensus, and similar behaviour in the AfD of another article involving the same set of confirmed paid editors Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Minter per WP:COIN. Better than merely claiming no COI, behaving as such would be more convincing. Widefox; talk 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss about data not editors. I did not hold any one's tongue. They asked me give five references. I put them for review here. Stop trying to silence me. Admin can delete this topic if it is not notable it will not effect me. Your COI report is without evidence but you put it everywhere you want to undermine my posts. Consensus is not voting it is discussing stop stopping me from discussing let them review references or are you afraid references may be good? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are refusing to stop this disruption here and elsewhere, I will report your account WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 00:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking you to discuss or let discuss. If you disagree ok good but let them review. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press releases and some of the URLs are not even working. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is not working? Some are paid journal references you will need credit card. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it working? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably this press release. Nik thestunned 00:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was working last time. Page is moved maybe. I searched this title again. [78] [79]. It is from same news agency maybe so it is also here. Author is Keith Barker not ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - at the bottom of the first link you provided it says: "Sources: CNW - ERA pr 2013" and the second: "SOURCE: Electronic Recycling Association". Also, it's clearly a press release. Nik thestunned 00:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is references section. Good topics have sources section like wikipedia. Is there proof that it is written by ERA or ERA is author? Explain why is a person name written in author? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not working! Widefox; talk 01:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has become WP:DeadLink. Title was "The Electronic Recycling Association introduces the only mobile hard drive shredders in Western Canada, and Metro Vancouver" so I have researched it. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a press release, written by ERA. There is no doubt about that. Nik thestunned 09:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is going round in circles due to reluctance to accept facts by User:TheSawTooth - this dead ref / PR was explicitly marked / pointed out 6th Dec [80] "dead and actual ref is PR". Widefox; talk 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a press release and one users reluctance to accept it does not mean that the article goes thru AfD unscathed. Let the closing admin decide here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't seem very notable in any way. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have a credit card or time for this bullsh@t. --Malerooster (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your argument? Use policy argument be civil. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article appears to be worded neutrally as TheSawTooth says (and I understand their newbie instinct to keep their "first major contribution"), let's not keep an article similar to a company with in-depth coverage while academic sources do not discuss the operations or any other significant roles of the company in the same depth (atleast yet or as yet demonstrated). I find WP:CORPDEPTH the only right argument for this (also suggest it to TST and other contributors of the article to read it through) as it says deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.. Given that this is a non-profit, there are news reports based on its work but this is not wikinews, it is wikipedia (an encyclopedia). Similarly, Nikthestunned's version of the article focuses mainly on a controversy making it WP:COATRACK instead of discussing the non-profit itself. Given that Nikthestunned appears to have recognized this factor in his own nomination, it is best to delete the article. If the company acquires more notability in the terms of independent scholarly news WP:RS coverage (not more press releases alone), an editor will eventually create an article about it (with no prejudice to TheSawTooth). However, it does not look like that it will happen any time soon. To preempt any back and forth discussion on my comment, I'd note in advance that I have reached this opinion even after ignoring the edits by IPs, COI or other behaviour allegations (or any non content discussions for that matter). Disclaimer: I found this AFD via TheSawTooth's contributions history after I saw this come up at ANI, but I have no dispute with him / her so I find it ok to drop my two cents on this apparently heated discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special events work with police and book reference is routine??? How many reference is depth? What more type of reference is corpdepth what may it discuss? ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fai zan 15:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the herculean work by editor TheSawTooth, this still fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Station (YouTube Channel)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article about a youtube channel. They got significant buzz and sensationalism for their recent controversial pitch invasions, but the channel itself isn't notable and looks too much of a self-promotion. Harsh (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have no affiliation with Troll Station and believe their channel to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. They are very popular at the moment and this will only increase; the recent pitch invasions prove they are on the rise. To combat your second point about this being like self-promotion, I must reiterate that I am not affiliated with Troll Station and have tried to write the article as impartially as possible. This article should not be deleted. Edfilmsuk (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean you have affiliation with the channel. Youtube, IMDB and twitter aren't considered reliable sources per wikipedia policy. All other sources in the article relate to one single event, i.e the pitch invasion. The channel itself isn't notable. Harsh (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. The content cited by IMDB/YouTube/Twitter is purely rudimentary, i.e to confirm the identities of Troll Station's key members and reference their videos. Their previous pranks are "notable" and interesting in the controversy that they generated. The pitch invasion just happens to be the one that stood out the most. Bearing in mind the fact that the event itself is very "notable" and that similar controversial events are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, it would be viable to keep this page. Edfilmsuk (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you provide some reliable, secondary and independent sources to verify their notability, apart from that controversy. Youtube views don't warrant notability. Harsh (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are claims of the channel being controversial, I fail to see where this channel has really gained that much coverage in the news. There was coverage for one fairly minor incident last month, but I can't see where this was a major enough event to really warrant keeping on that basis alone. It pretty much falls under WP:ONEEVENT when you get down to it, since only a handful of news outlets bothered to write about it and the whole thing was forgotten fairly quickly. Just being in the news briefly isn't enough to warrant having an article- heck, look at Belle Knox. She received far, far more coverage than this channel did and the first incarnation of the article was still deleted, despite worldwide coverage. This channel has received maybe .001% of the same coverage and even then it's limited to UK papers. As far as the other pranks go, none of them gained any coverage in reliable sources, which is what you'd need to prove notability. You have WP:PRIMARY sources (official YT channel, Twitter, etc) and WP:TRIVIAL sources (IMDb), but they cannot show notability. Something is not automatically notable because it exists (WP:ITEXISTS), it's interesting (WP:INTERESTING), or even because it's popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR), although I will say that the channel's subscriber numbers are fairly low in comparison to other people on YouTube. (My favorite example is to hold up Cryaotic, someone who has almost 2 million subscribers and still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) When/if the channel gains more coverage they could potentially be re-added, but at this time it is pretty much WP:TOOSOON for an entry. We can't guarantee that the channel will gain more coverage (WP:CRYSTAL), as most media coverage of these sort of things is sort of the luck of the draw. For every Alan Abel there are at least a thousand others who tried to become a professional prankster and maybe got a little coverage, but ultimately failed because the media didn't give them any coverage. You can't guarantee that they'll be in the news again. Rory, I know that you want to show your fandom and keep the page, but the channel just isn't notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just passing through and wanted to reply to the above user; while there are some valid arguments that this article doesn't come under Wikipedia's terms of notability, it is more common knowledge that Troll Station are reputable. And while there are no 100% guarantees that they'll be in the news again, the likelihood of it happening is higher than it not. If we get things into perspective, isn't Wikipedia all about information about interesting subjects? Regardless of Wikipedia's arcane technicalities, doesn't it just come down to that? 109.148.3.146 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to show notability by providing coverage in reliable sources. Saying that something is interesting (WP:ITSINTERESTING) or that it's likely to be in the news again (WP:CRYSTAL) are not valid reasons to keep an article. As far as the coverage below goes, that is a step in the right direction. The only big problem is that some of those news stories are just reposts of videos, so they'd be considered WP:TRIVIAL at best. It's not that I'm ever particularly gung ho about deleting a page, just that I want to ensure that if something does survive AfD that it won't be deleted in a year's time when standards become more strict. (And they always become more strict, sadly.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and cannot be deleted because of WP:ONEEVENT as there's been lots of reliable coverage prior to the pitch invasion prank.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] etc.--Theamazo (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Theamazo, Anonymous and TokyoGirl for your input. I have to agree with anon when he/she insinuates that there are many pages far less notable than Troll Station that have surprisingly survived existence, let alone deletion. For example, even typing in Troll Station on Wikipedia directs you to Troll (research station) which I must say is unremarkable at best. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's plenty of news articles out there [93][94][95], I'll admit most so far are of the pitch invasion but no doubt they'll do another stunt that'll receive alot more coverage. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:13, 11 December 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, slakr^\ talk / 04:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage is trivial "news filler" type stuff that does not provide significant coverage of the YouTube channel as a business entity. When news sources post a couple of sentences leading to click bait trying to get people to view a "funny video", that does not establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl's fine reasonings; the now-usual 'look, viral video, now we'll describe what's exactly going on in the video without any variation' reporting these videos have is non-notable. This isn't at GoldenPalace.com levels yet, an example that's equivalent from the last decade. Nate • (chatter) 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The channel has a high enough amount of views and subscribers be considered notable. News coverage has been plentiful enough to reinforce this. The channel is also up-and-coming and has reached a high enough status to satisfy Wikipedia's notability. Those who suggest deleting the page seem to convey opinions substantiated by opinion more than fact (e.g. ideas that can be summarised with 'I don't think it's notable' or 'coverage, despite being in excess, is sensationalised'. As a result, I see no reason to remove this page. BritainsFinest (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically one event provided news. That news did not provide a basis for notability. See analysis by Tokyogirl79. Lacks significant coverage per editor Cullen³²⁸. The reasons given by the "keepers" are not Wikipedia notability reasons, they are reputability and number of subscribers. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unison Agency[edit]

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

Flagged as an advert for 5 years now. No search results in the leading trade magazine, PRWeek. Article is a mix of name-dropping, awards-spam and promotion, such as a description of how each tagline its ever had emphasized its strengths at the time. There are very few awards in the PR industry that genuinely impart notability, being that there are hundreds given out each year in this particular industry. CorporateM (Talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, promotional. BethNaught (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of notability, fails WP:ORG The only mentions in media that I could find were in reference to members (so and so, who works at Unison Agency). That doesn't count as media coverage. Trysha ^(talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Momeraths[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever Widr (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject of this article fails WP:BAND: it has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the group itself. Also, the mome raths' outgrabe at an unfortunate level of quality because the band has not fulfilled most of the other criteria at WP:BAND, including having a single or album on a country's national music chart, having a record certified gold, or winning or being nominated a major music award. - tucoxn\^talk 03:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Momeraths2006, a role account for the band or a member of the band, requested that the article be deleted in a comment on their talk page and in an edit summary for an edit to the article in question. (Please note that Momeraths2006, if it indeed represents the band, likely violates Wikipedia's Username Policy as it would be a username implying shared use.) - tucoxn\^talk 09:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Is Made in China[edit]

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

WP:A7 deletion was contested. Decision at deletion review was to reverse the A7 deletion and bring the article to AfD for a closer look. My role here is strictly administrative; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who re-created the article some days ago, and who contested the A7 deletion afterwards. See my comments on the A7 discussion for my rationale about the band's notability. I have added a couple of references to the restored article. Regardless of the final outcome on this article, it is my opinion that the current Wikipedia guidelines for bands' notability are too harsh, and go against Wikimedia Foundation ultimate vision of storing all of the knowledge of the human race. -rsanchezsaez (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "the sum of all knowledge" - not all knowledge and everything, ever, indiscriminately. Whether you like it or not, we have rules that require things to meet specific inclusion criteria before they are... you know... included. Facebook likes is not an inclusion criteria. There are arbitrary rules for bands, yes, but we still have WP:GNG as a fall back in case they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources while still not "hitting the big time". In this instance we have one single example of coverage but not much else. That wouldn't seem to be enough at the moment. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:17, 4 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything that indicates how these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 21:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. --Bejnar (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Insular. Mr.Z-man 03:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insularity[edit]

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

Unsourced for eight years; appears more like a dictionary definition; more appropriate for Wiktionary Drm310 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dictionary entry. Fails WP:NAD and WP:OR. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAD and there is already a definition on Wiktionary. cyberdog958^Talk 06:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect (WP:SRD) to the wiktionary entry. ansh666 07:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insular per Granger below works too. ansh666 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Insular, which is a disambiguation page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has great notability and all one has to do to see this is click on the search links above. Here are some examples:

Islanded Identities: Constructions of Postcolonial Cultural Insularity
Human Responses to Insularity
Insularity and Development: International Perspectives on Islands
Insularity: Representations and Constructions of Small Worlds
Insularity and Its Effect on Mammal Evolution
Insularity and its effects
Insularity and Identity in the Caribbean
Tropical Insularity and Health
The Biology of Insularity: an introduction
Size, Insularity and Democracy

Our editing policy is to expand upon such weak starts, not to delete them, and we don't have a deadline for this work. Andrew D. (talk)

Comment – I agree that those are significant topics. But we already have articles on insularity in ecosystems. See Island ecology, Insular biogeography, and Patch dynamics. We could also have articles about evolution and survival in isolated social systems. But this article isn't about that. It's simply a definition that says insularity = geographic isolation. And another sense of the word, insularity = narrow mindedness, for which we have the article Parochialism. I would be willing to keep this article if it showed potential for developing into a topic, but as it stands I think it's just listing a couple meanings of the word. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it becomes sourced. See WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that an article could be written for Insularity (psychology) and another different one for Insularity (sociology), and a third entirely different one for Insularity (evolution); however this article is not any of them, and based on the existing text cannot become one. Delete this. If you believe, as does editor Andrew D., that there should be such articles, write one. Kudos for editor Margin1522's analysis above. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 04:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add3.com[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly advertising –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another promotional article about just another run-of-the-mill search engine optimization shop, with routine, predictable, expected coverage in local and trade media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Sulkowicz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted via a prior AfD. This was deleted in 2005 and I was very, very tempted to just delete this as a repost, but this does have much more content and sourcing than its 2005 counterpart did and there is just enough of an assertion of notability to where I felt that it'd be best to run this through AfD as opposed to outright speedy deletion. I really don't see where this should have been accepted through AfC either, as the sourcing is largely primary and there's only one source that is really independent of Sulkowicz herself. (It doesn't help that the article is somewhat promotional in tone.) I couldn't find anything via a search, so I have to assume that this person still fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once we cut through the directory entries and the rest of the cruft, pretty much the only independent reference about him (and he is a man) we have left is this, where his views on 9/11 are set forth. Of course, that material isn't really quotable, and the way it is quoted in the article at hand ("He first attracted public attention after 9/11….") isn't supported by the source.
So, in essence, this is a vanity page with very little in the way of substantive backing, and should be deleted for failing to meet WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Missvain: who accepted this at AfC... Sulkowicz's work appears to have attracted very little academic work, so that avenue is probably out. He has been quoted by the press as an expert on numerous (30+) occasions and this is probably sufficient to count a significant RS coverage, albeit borderline since it is primarily an interview. Undecided as to whether that adds up to notability or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I swear these AfC ghosts continue to haunt me (I gave that up a while ago!). :-) I saw weak keep - he does pass the general notability guidelines if you want to talk about the significant RS coverage, and being interviewed does give weight - he's a specialist in his field - and people go to him as a subject matter expert. But, I'm not a specialist in the subject area - so perhaps bringing some folks from projects focused on mental health fields might be a good idea? Missvain (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The problem is that it's written like a PR piece. It doesn't hurt to know that there are psychiatric consultants to corporations. The NYT article is OK. The Psychiatric Times is apparently a RS, although the statement "one of the most sought after psychoanalysts in the world." is silly. How can they know that? Tag it to ask someone to strip out the puffery. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment On the fence on this one, but I tried to take the promotional tone down a notch. There's some coverage of him related to the incident involving his daughter at Columbia, but that wouldn't be enough in itself to get him over the bar. The vice-chair position on the board of Physicians for Human Rights is unique, but I'm not sure whether that does it either. He does appear as an expert in a few publications. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially an advertisement. Does not meet WP:PROF--his bio at NYU lists 3 articles only. The requirement is not to be a specialist in one's field, but an authority in one's field. Chair of a board can be notability, but not vice-chair. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zherebko[edit]

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

External links inadequate to justify importance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:DIRECTOR. Results on Google are social media and passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LifeLogger[edit]

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

I just don't know about this one. Clearly it is notable enough to have CNN Money track their stocks: cnn_money but I still don't know if that justifies notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I suspect CNN Money tracks all stocks traded. Per WP:LISTED, being publicly traded does not automatically make a company notable. Trivialist (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Keep the article up. These guys are huge with their wearable camera software. These guys are a notable company that is exhibiting at CES 2015 to show their wearable camera and their software solution. There is absolutely no reason that this article should be deleted. 184.65.114.23 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)— 184.65.114.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep; LifeLogger is a booming company and a leader in the wearable space, don't delete this article

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; LifeLogger is a leader in this industry. It has caught the attention of many investors and consumers and will continue to succeed. There is absolutely no reason that this article needs to be deleted and i also disagree that it was written like an advertisement. 209.121.225.159 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that this reaches WP:CORP, Note that none of the keep arguments appear to be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on article inclusion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HEInnovate[edit]

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

Declined proposed deletion. No third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG. Sources online don't seem to be reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Les Aiglons[edit]

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

Band doesn't seem to pass WP:BAND. The only source I can find is here which is pretty close to trivial. The French version of this article does not have any reliable sources included either. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Classic 1970s Caribbean band, famous locally, influential, discussed in books about the region and the genre. See the AllMusic biography, the mention of them in the book World Music: Latin & North America, Caribbean, India, Asia and Pacific, and in Calypso Drift. Ethnomusicologist Jocelyne Guilbault wrote about them in Zouk: World Music in the West Indies. The band's single "Cuisse-la" was a record-breaking hit.[96] We ought to tell the reader about this band. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the discography, which shows many albums on the notable label of fr:Henri Debs (see there that several significant bands were on it), and that best-selling hit noted above. The sourcing still isn't great but they are clearly notable.Rigadoun (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 04:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those references still seem somewhat trivial to me but I'll withdraw it. - Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Capitol Broadcasting Company. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microspace Communications Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Google results return social media, location archives, and affiliated websites. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No apparent significant coverage. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to parent company Capitol Broadcasting Company. Alone this fails WP:CORP. In looking, I found press releases and only one RS that "mentioned" them in a slightly more-than-trivial fashion.[97] It might merit a mention in the parent company article, but there's not enough coverage to support one of its own. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - A merge/redirect seems reasonable. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: and @NickCT: - Looks good to me. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No need to relist a 3rd time, as we have 100% consensus for a redirect... even from the nominator. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 content here is a copy vio then this is no further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Seferinova[edit]

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

BLP prod removed after references were added. However, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The article also suffers from terrible layout/formatting, and poor grammar/vocabulary. It does not belong in the mainspace (through I am not saying we should delete it due to it looking like a bad draft; bad drafts can be improved - I am just not seeing any reliable references in this mess). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very large post

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi As I didn't know if you read that on Piotrus page, I copied the posts & I'm pasting them here. Would be grateful for reply.

Discussion:

Dear Piotrus

Why is Valentina Seferinova page suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Quite a few reasons come to mind:

I have come across many other entries where (in my opinion & not only my opinion, but others too!) people haven't achieved & have not contributed to our musical knowledge as much as I have & still am trying to do.

Indeed many entries that I see in the Classical Music genre should not be there at all.

It has been my intention to bring back from 'the dead' many composers & their music.

It's composers & music that at their time was a significant part of the concert stage & people's lives. I have recorded and played live many long forgotten composers of different nationalities (Polish, Jewish, Swiss, Bulgarian etc etc). I'm not just focusing on Bulgarian music (because I've been born brought up there) but I'm trying to bring to life as many composers from different nationalities & countries that for many reasons were forgotten (or in some cases music was destroyed by Nazi's in their attempt to erase Jewish and Polish music and culture from the face of our planet! Similarly with Stalin in the second half of the 20th century and his attempts to complete Hitler's aims of crushing Jewish and polish culture) as much as I can.

Since the collapse of Communism has allowed these cultures to start investigating and putting things back together in their original and true context.

I'm not sure if you're a musician of any sort, or have an in depth knowledge of musical history but please try and see the significance of the composers listed on my entry. They have not been chosen on a whim. They all fall into the category of what I'm outlining. For the Poles - they have yet to re-discover who and what came after Chopin in terms of the development and progression of the classical music form!! (because of the cultural destruction they suffered).

It's absolutely the same for long lost composers with a Jewish heritage - they too suffered horrendously during the 20th Century.

I feel that unless we know of our past & our heritage, how will we be able to find the right path into the future?!

If we don't know where we came from (musically and philosophically) - how do we know where we're going; and what it all means? The development of modern music forms (both classical and modern) absolutely forms a lineage (like an ancestral tree; one composer/performer learns from his peers then passes on his knowledge and ideas to the generation that follows him or her) over the centuries.

The Polish composers Noskowski, Różycki, and Wieniawski are absolutely in that vein. Similarly the ethnically Jewish composers Raff, Jadassohn, and Brüll are themselves in that vein

Another reason: there have been so many people at concerts, on the Internet, YouTube, you name it, that have been saying after hearing some of the music I have recorded & played live: 'Why haven't I heard of this before? It's beautiful! Where can we find out more...? Thank you for bringing this music to us!. ..'

Well, I'm trying (as others do too) & succeeding: Raff op2 No2 Romance I recorded for the first time ever (in history in fact) in 2002; it is now a well-established piece in the piano literature - included in the grade 6 Trinity exam board! Nowadays many other people are playing & recording the music I've discovered:

The Jadassohn concerto I recorded for the first time ever has subsequently been recorded again by the Hyperion label by another soloist and orchestra.

Similarly the Raff 2nd Sonata that I recorded for the first time ever (the term 'premiere recordings' is exactly what it says) has been recorded subsequently by another artiste by Naxos etc...

My recordings and myself are thus 'notable' in that they are the originals which others are judged by.

At the end I just want to add that I'm doing all this revival in the benefit of the new generation & future generations as when I was a student I had to learn about the music of composers without being able to hear a single note of it as there were no recordings available.

There are many piano performers who are listed on Wikipedia - and I don't know why it is so - because they do not appear to be 'notable' (your criteria) in any exceptional way for their performances.

May I humbly suggest that I have not just the performance qualifications - but the academic qualifications also - so much missing in others and their entries.

Although writing about my own achievements feels awkward, I feel the facts speak for themselves.

Regards

Valentina Seferinova

Master of Music - Theory; Assistant Professor of Music - Performance

(Married Name = Mrs Valentina Seferinova-Bradley; my British husband has always agreed to my retaining my maiden name for professional reasons - i.e.’ Valentina Seferinova’ has a better 'ring' about it than 'Valentina Bradley' !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visb723(talk • contribs) 07:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved from top, by — Revi 07:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MLADENOVA (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Visb723MLADENOVA (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC) and small corrections by MLADENOVA (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus

Re proposed deletion of Valentina Seferinova on the grounds of lack of clear references. Have added 2 cite references for 'Valentina Seferinova' and the piano Duo 'Va I Ve' - each from the British & International Music Year Book 2015 - although both have been in this authoritative reference manual for in excess of 14 or 15 years. regards MLADENOVA (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus Re proposed deletion of Valentina Seferinova on the grounds of not notable. This addresses the question as to whether Valentina Seferinova is ‘notable’ or not. Claude Debussy (22 August 1862 – 25 March 1918) – a famous French composer, who, together with Maurice Ravel, he was one of the most prominent figures associated with Impressionist music, which endeavoured (mostly successfully) to re-create in music what Monet and others were achieving in the painting world. The French were very proud of Debussy – at last they had a composer of International standing to rank alongside the likes of Chopin, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. So much so that they eventually turned his 3 storey terraced birth house in St Germain-en-Laye (the outskirts of Paris at the time) into a Museum dedicated to his life and works; a ‘shrine’ if you like. On the top floor was Debussy’s bedroom, together with his piano, which they turned into a small and intimate auditorium. From time to time the Trustees would cast around the world to invite a performer, or performers, who were known to be of the requisite quality to give the Debussy Anniversary recital. For Debussy ‘fans’ around the world, the pinnacle was to be seated in Debussy’s own auditorium on the anniversary of his birth – and listening to world class level performances of his music. Please bear in mind that this arrangement prevents people who want to perform there just ringing up and saying they’d like to play there. Such opportunities were to be by invitation only. In the autumn of 1998 – Assistant Professor Valentina, together with colleague Prof. Emilia Mihaylova, gave the first ever performance of Debussy’s complete works for 4 hands (1 piano) (known as ‘Integrale’) in Sofia the capital of Bulgaria. This performance was recorded and even today is the first and only CD recording of Debussy’s ‘Integrale’. I state that this is a notable achievement – and in keeping with her record, outlined above, of being the first pianist to record certain long lost – but important in the history and development of music, works. However this recording came to the attention of the Trustees of the Debussy House and Museum – and the pair of them were invited to give the 1999 Debussy anniversary recital on 21st August 1999. I ask you to take a look at website http://www.ot-saintgermainenlaye.fr/fileadmin/omt-site/document/Phototheque/MCD/Plaquette_C._Debussy_2014_GB.pdf- a website devoted to Debussy’s House and Museum. Please read the left hand panel; in the photograph please note the décor, the wall paper, and the photograph hanging on the wall (a photograph of Yvonne Lefebure – a famous French pianist – and to whom the auditorium is dedicated). Please now go to some YouTube videos on Valentina’s channel (e.g.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te7sn2BZjso; andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvCHHTgbhgQ; there are more). I hope you’ll notice that the décor and picture are exactly the same – thus proving Valentina’s performance credentials at this exclusive venue. It is true that the performers do not get paid for their recitals. It is simply the honour and professional recognition of the quality of their performances that they are playing for. There are countless professional pianist, who are perhaps more well-known because of their commercial success - (many on Wikipedia) who would give their right arm to be invited, even though there is no commercial gain – because it would be the professional endorsement to their Debussy performances that, as I say, they’d give their right arm for. But they have not received such an invitation. Bottom line – “your Debussy knowledge, understanding, interpretation, and performance has to be the best there is – world class. No exception” Valentina has received this notable accolade from the Trustees of the Debussy House and Museum – not only for her CD recording of Debussy’s Integrale – but her live performance as well. To give it some more notable context:- Debussy died in 1918 – Valentina’s performance was in 1999 – some 81 years later. Take out some years before the Trustees had established themselves and the recital programme; take out say 6 years of the Second World War; take out other years when it just didn’t happen – then there’s probably only a maximum of 60 or so performers worldwide who’ve received such an invitation and accolade. Valentina is one of those. In my mind that qualifies as ‘notable’. Regards PS - how do I know these things ? Because I was there for all of the events mentioned. MLADENOVA (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visb723 (talk • contribs)

Delete - not a single link added to this article is reliable and independent of the subject. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another very large post

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It might not be 'Independent' - but by God it's 'Reliable' !! MLADENOVA (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus
Re proposed deletion of Valentina Seferinova on the grounds of not notable.
This addresses the question as to whether Valentina Seferinova is ‘notable’ or not.
Sergei Rachmaninoff - 1873 – 28 March 1943) was a Russian composer, pianist, and conductor. Rachmaninoff is widely considered one of the finest pianists of his day and, as a composer, one of the last great representatives of Romanticism in Russian classical music.
At some time later after he died was formed The Rachmaninoff Society under the patronage of famous Russian Conductor and Pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy. It’s raison d’etre was to keep the memory and music alive of Rachmaninoff (as if this really needed doing!!) It’s membership was worldwide.
Each year it held it’s AGM (Annual General Meeting) – typically a weekend retreat lasting from a Friday evening through to the Sunday evening somewhere in the Northern hemisphere – typically USA/New York – but most often in the UK.
The organisers would cast around for someone suitable to give a ‘closed performance’ of Rachmaninoff’s works for the private benefit of members.
Again it would have to be a musician whose knowledge, understanding, interpretation, and performance was of the highest level worthy of the member’s attention.
Valentina was approached for the first time in April 1999 – her performance diary records:- ‘Closed’ recital performance of Rachmaninov cycles for the AGM of The Rachmaninoff Society (President: Vladimir Ashkenazy), Codshall, Nr. Wolverhampton.
The second time was in April 2005 – her performance diary records :- 2nd Recital for The Rachmaninoff Society's A.G.M (President: Vladimir Ashkenazy), and in the presence of 2 of Rachmaninov's Great Grandchildren - pieces by Rachmaninov (Moments Musicaux No. 3 in B minor, Op.16.; Moments Musicaux No. 4 in E minor, Op.16.): Skriabin (3 Pieces for Piano Op.2 [Etude; Prelude; Impromptu alla Mazurka]): Vladigueroff (Prelude from '3 Pieces for Piano', Op.15. Pessen [Song] from 'Bulgarian Suite', Op.21 No.2.; Rhapsodie 'Vardar' Op.16.).
At this performance (in London) she received a complete standing ovation.
“so what ?” you say. Well 2 of Rachmaninoff’s Great Grandchildren were in the audience – and you only have to ask yourself “just how many performances have they ever sat through to know which are the good performances or not !!”
She was invited back for an unprecedented 3rd time in 2008; but declined in favour of playing with partner Venera Bojkova, as 'Va i Ve', a 2 piano duet, for their September 2009 AGM.

As in the case of being invited to perform at the Claude Debussy House & Museum – exactly the same criteria applies.
It just has to be world class; nothing else will do.
Other professional musicians would give their right arm to be invited jut once to endorse their professional reputations.
But none of those featured on Wikipedia have.
Valentina has been invited, and performed not once, not twice – but three times.
That to my mind is ‘notable’.

PS the International Rachmaninoff Society ceased to be in 2013 – mainly due, it’s believed, to being no longer financially viable.
But the facts of Valentina’s appearances remain.
PPS - How do I know these things?
Because I was there in person.

Regards MLADENOVA (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus I again address whether Valentina Seferinova is worthy of a Wikipedia entry; although this comment is slightly more difficult.
I have uploaded a private video to YouTube which I do not wish to be in the Public Domain for longer than is necessary.
The reason why is that the person featured is Benjamin Zander.
Whilst he was aware being recorded, I had, at the time, explained that it was for private purposes only. However because his comments were made at an event open to the public I believe his comments to be in the Public Domain (but the video isn’t if you can follow me !?)
Benjamin Zander is a British born American citizen - Conductor, and Musician.
At the time the video was made he was Conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra. He is a three times Grammy award nominee for various CD recordings made with orchestras under his baton.
A man of acknowledged significance in the Classical Music world.
On 21st July 1997 there was a chance encounter between Valentina Seferinova and himself at the Sinfonia Centre, Ouseburn Park, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Valentina was rehearsing and playing Schubert’s Sonata in B flat major in front of an audience.
What happened turned out to be a sort of Master Class from Benjamin Zander.
The video is at Valentina & Benjamin Zander
(Sorry - I’ve had to do it this way to get around Wikipedia’s ‘black list’ of YouTube !)
It is myself behind the camera – and I am the lawful copyright holder of the video.
The video is some 46 minutes long.
It’s probable that you’re understandably too busy to watch it in full – so I will summarise :-
At 0:58 (video time) Benjamin Zander enters the Rehearsal Room/Auditrium.
At 1:50 Valentina is on the piano.
At 2:18 Benjamin Zander is announcing as part of a master Class colleague Valentina will play Schubert’s Sonata B flat major, saying “…I will interrupt because it’s a very long piece ..”.
From 2:46 Valentina plays.
At 7:27 Benjamin Zander rapturously interrupts Valentina with the words “ I’m sure you’re saying ‘What can he possibly say? It’s such beautiful music making. It’s so wonderful what you do.’” And to Valentina he say “What I can say to you – and this is an important thing for you to hear. You are a great artiste , - and a great pianist, - and you understand Schubert, - and you don’t always do what he says .. (with a wry smile), and quite often”. “When we get very accomplished and very masterful – as you are…”
They sit beside each other to investigate and discover what Is Benjamin Zander’s ‘take’ on the piece.
At 15:06 whilst discussing some technical aspects of the piece, Benjamin Zander remarks “There are probably 3 pianists on the face of the Earth who can do this - you’re one of them!” (Possibly slightly tongue in cheek – but said nonetheless.)
It’s interesting to watch as the encounter progresses that whereas in the beginning Benjamin Zander was marginally critical – he becomes more and more ‘besotted’ with Valentina’s playing (25:00 and on) – and in the end is completely won over!! You watch – the body language and attitude changes as it progresses.
32:57 “Beautiful playing!”
Suggest you watch from 44:38
44:59 “That’s about a great artiste and a great musician themselves at the service of the music - 100%.”.
At 45:43 more fulsome praise “this was a great encounter - because you're a tremendous musician; and a great spirit; I mean huge, - and you have everything. Thank you for being available.”

Sooooooo – A 3 time Grammy Award nominee – who must have dealt with hundreds (?) of pianists rates her knowledge, understanding, and playing of Schubert to be amongst the top 3 in the world.

In my mind that’s ‘notable’

The difficulty I have is – how can I cite and prove his words when I don’t want the video to be in the Public Domain (even though his words are!)

Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus

So here we have a former child prodigy (her first public performances as a solo piano player, and orchestral soloist were when she was only 12 years of age – that’s notable) who went on to become a highly academically qualified award winning (see original entry) classical Concert pianist - which I suggest is notable in itself (Typically performers have the gift and talent of performance only)
I hope I’ve demonstrated that she is an acknowledged expert – i.e. in knowledge, understanding, interpretation and performance to a world class standard of at least 3 composers (Schubert; Debussy; Rachmaninov) of the Classical Romantic era.
In my mind this is notable; it is more typical that a performer will be an ‘expert’ in one composer only – if any at all.
I hope I’ve illustrated that she has probably contributed more to the further knowledge and understanding of long lost composers than anyone else in recent times – and has helped to fill the void in knowledge and understanding because of the cultural devastation and consequences of 2 of the world’s worst despots(Hitler and Stalin) of the 20th Century i.e. to Jewish heritage music; and to Polish music. She continues to this day with plans to be back in a Warsaw recording studio as early as next spring
She was principally involved in the rediscovery of a‘lost’ orchestral work of the British female composer Dorothy Howell.
I’m happy for you to have Valentina’s and my above posts reviewed by someone else whose knowledge of such things may be greater should you not be content.
For the Polish music aspect may I humbly suggest a contact with Jan Jarnicki of Acte Préalable in Warsaw, who is the principal in rediscovering, recording, and putting back together again Polish Classical music after Chopin [(email: [email protected])].
If you are content – then may I humbly agree that Valentina’s entry be part of the United Kingdom, and Bulgaria Wikipedia projects – but at a higher level/significance than the ‘low level’ you are suggesting.
May I also suggest that if similar projects/portals exist for Poland, and Israel that Valentina’s entry be reflected there too.
AND THERE IN LIES OUR PROBLEM – BOTH Valentina and I are quite quite amateurs at this Wikipedia matter – we haven’t a clue how to go about things; and seek your maximum help and assistance in clearing up the mess of matters that brought Valentina Seferinova to your attention in the first place.
Please – a BIG HELP is needed !.
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete It is easy to determine that the subject is indeed a musician who performs and records. I cannot, however, find any neutral-party reviews of her work. She is listed on album covers as "award-winning" but so far there is no source for this. Also note that some of the text of the article was taken verbatim from some album cover blurbs, which would in theory make them copyright violations. To the editor of the article, the first thing I would suggest is finding some (preferably English-language) articles about her and reviews of her work. This references must NOT be blogs, nor from her own web site, nor may they be promotional materials for her recordings or performances. You need to find a reliable music reviewer who has written about her work. And remember: every fact you include in the article must come from a third-party source, even those facts you know personally. LaMona (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even more very large posts

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The comments that follow are also intended to answer Bearian's post above that there isn't a single reliable and independent link to support valentina Seferinova's article, when in fact there are, in fact many many. My problem has been, in trying to be editorially neutral in following Wikipedia guide lines, I felt they were too self promoting to be used.
Please advise in how they can be used to support the article.
MLADENOVA (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dusti
I get it and understand that Wikipedia must be rigorous in challenging any new submission to check its 'worthiness' - but sometimes it's not easy, particularly when relying on information that came into being PRIOR to wide spread use and acceptance of the Internet, to provide the independent reference via a web link; sometimes the referenced material exists only in the original documents held by the person concerned.
I respectfully note your relative youth at this moment to remind you that the availability of information via the web is a relatively new phenomenon for us of an older generation, certainly anything older than say 10 years can be difficult to substantiate by providing a web link. I think this is where the matter of 'Good Faith' has to come into play.
May I remind you that we're talking about someone who has academically achieved international recognition as 'Master of Music', and gone on to become Assistant Professor of Music - together with a reputation as a notable performer of different composers.
It seems to me very unlikely that she would sully her hard won and fought for reputation by actively lying about her achievements. But the truth of the matter that much of the evidence sought by yourself lies only in the physical documents that she holds as part of her CV. Having said that I will endeavor to meet the raising of the bar and provide answers to the points and recommendations that you offer.
I suppose it's only fair at this juncture to declare my relationship with the subject, Valentina Seferinova - she is my wife.
That should not automatically rule me out - because, at one stage in my own (non musical) career was Group Manager of a very large UK based Defence company - such that I understand the need for impartiality, and feel, by and large, that I'm able to be so (as required by Wikipedai).

To answer your observations on 'Award Winning', I list the following:-
Prizes/achievements awarded:
1980 (aged 11 years old) 4th Prize – ‘Svetoslav Obretenov (Bulgarian Composer) National Competition’.
1981 1st Prize – Music School Open Competition (for Bulgarian Music).
1984 Laureate and Gold Medal in the 6th. Bulgarian National Musical Competition.
1984 2nd Prize – Music School Open Competition (Bulgarian Music).
1985 1st Prize – Music School Open Competition (Modern Music).
1985 - 2nd Prize for Composing - Competition for Young Composers, Music School, Ruse.
1986 - 1st Prize – Music School Open Competition (Russian Music).
1987 - 2nd Prize - National Competition for Chamber Music (as piano accompanist with Violin - Grieg Sonata Opus No. 45 in C Minor).
1987 - 1st Prize – Music School Open Competition (French Music).
1992 - 2nd Prize (by 1 point in 200 - Instrumental, Solo, Open Class) International Eisteddfod, Cleveland, UK. (Honours graded for both Chopin: Fantasie F-moll Op. 49, and Debussy: L’Isle Joyeuse).
1993 - 1st Prize - (Diploma and Title "Laureate of “Earth and Music”) in Open International Competition in Bulgaria.
1993 - 1st Prize – National Academy Open Competition.
The original documents (proof?) are held by us. This, of course, makes it difficult, if not impossible' to reference these documents (unless you know better?) in the subject Article. However copies can be provided if challenged, or as necessary.
It seems to me that there has been no breach of copyrights - because the source of the quotes on various CD covers is her own Biography !!

Would welcome any comments or feedback at this juncture.
I hope to be adding more by way of independent assessments of her performance work.
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dusti
You suggest finding some independent reviews of her work.
Easy.
Here is an unedited one from The American Record Guide dated June 2003 referring to a review of one of her CDs (Joachim Raff), we have it in hard copy filed under the old fashioned title of 'Press Cuttings' - but it's not available on-line at their site (or you have to pay for access to their Archive).
How do I overcome that problem?
As a American resident you may be able to check it out.
"This release introduces a new company and, I believe, the first recordings of three Raff piano works. Joachim Raff, who lived from 1822 to 1882, was one of the important Swiss composers of the 19th Century who faded into obscurity in the 20th Century but has recently begun to make a come-back. To learn more about Raff, see the Raff Society's web site at www.raff.org, which also has a complete listing of recordings and their reviews. I must admit to being slightly put off by this recording at first, for there are very loud extraneous low-frequency noises that I concluded are the pedals being enthusiastically activated by Ms Seferinova. These are unfamiliar works, but she seems to have them in her grasp and really plays very well. The problem can be partly cured by cutting the bass response. Also, it is worst in the second sonata. The Fantasy-Sonata was published as Op. 168 and is the second of three. It lasts about 17 minutes. The three movements may not have any truly memorable big themes but are very well written and full of exciting pianism. The Sonata in E-flat may have been published as Op. 14 but he re-wrote it in 1881 and it became his last published piano work. It was almost completely re-written and little remains of the earlier work. It has four movements lasting some 32 minutes. It is technically adept and quite brilliant. Much the same can be said for his three Morceaux, which were originally published as Op. 2 but were completely revised in 1877. They are pleasant morsels that require a refined piano technique.
Ms Seferinova has a grand technique and plays brilliantly. The recording is very wide range and well placed. The notes are excellent."
BAUMAN
Carl Bauman - American Record Guide - May/June 2003 issue Vol.66 No.3
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
To balance the review above here's another one from the USA - this time Paul Turok owner of Turok's Choice based in New York.
Again it only exists in hard copy. I can't find a website for the publication anymore - it seems to have been taken over by the Mega Classical CD label Naxos in circa 2006. However here's the un-edited review in Issue No. 147, of September 2003:-

"Valentina Seferinova takes on a difficult task, making something exciting out of Joachim Raff's highly respectable but hardly compelling Fantasia-Sonata, Op.168, Grand Sonata Op.14, and Trois Morceaux, Op.2. She is a fluent pianist, and does a fine job, until the dreadful fugue that takes up most of the finale of Op.14. Like the listener, she seems to go on automatic pilot, coping with one academic entry of the theme after another - one of the reasons Raff, despite many attempts to resurrect his music, remains more a "name" than a living musical force.”
Paul Turok of Turok's Choice, NY, USA, Issue No. 147, September 2003
(comment by Valentina Seferinova - his opinion seems to be highly coloured by a dislike of Raff!!!)

Please try and distinguish between comments on the music itself, and on the performer!

Now I ask you to go the first of many on-line references to Valentina's work, performances and recordings.
Please go to the website of Joachim Raff society; surely THE independent experts on all matters relating to the Romantic Era composer.
Please go to http://www.raff.org/records/reviews/reviews.htm
It's a lengthy list of all the CDs that have featured music by Joachim Raff - and their reviews of those CDs.
Note - it's only those with a green tick that they recommend; so they are not a 'buy them all' uncritical outfit.
About 3 quarters of the way down is a CD by Valentina and a green tick. Clicking on a link takes you to one of the most comprehensive reviews of any recordings !.
It takes you to this page http://www.raff.org/records/reviews/piano/01.htm.
I take this quote from the text "The fantasy side of op.168 is well brought out by Seferinova. She emphasises the improvisatory feel of the piece's start, presenting the opening Allegro patetico section almost as a series of musings on the motto theme which dominates the whole work. Her accuracy is ably demonstrated by the frantic figurations in which Raff indulges sporadically. The delicacy of the central Largo is a joy - there is something affectingly childlike in the simplicity of her treatment of these lovely variations, before the stormy concluding Allegro molto is ushered in by the last of them (a nice touch this by Raff). Perhaps Seferinova could have risked a more turbulent and Lisztian approach to this final section - one suspects that one should have been left with the impression of a "bigger" work than comes across here. Overall, though, this is an intelligent and poetic performance which grows on you with repeated listening. Her handling of the tempi in particular show what a good feel she has for the architecture of the whole three-section structure.
and "This excerpt, the end of the Romance from the Trois Morceaux, shows the delicacy of Seferinova's playing"
and "Seferinova plays it beautifully, investing it with a tenderness and, at the last, a tangible sense of faint regret. The central Romance features one of those immediately attractive Raffian melodies which linger stubbornly in the memory"
and "Once again, playing of immense charm and delicacy. The concluding Valse also begins uncertainly, but soon gets into its stride and here one is reminded of the many such works to which Raff turned his hand so effectively. There is more to it than there seems at first but even so Seferinova has it skip away seemingly without effort."
and "This seriousness is well conveyed by Seferinova and so her relaxing into the lyrical second subject is especially welcome. She makes light of the work's difficulties and the episodic sombreness and sometimes dense counterpoint are nicely contrasted with the more lyrical passages and intermittent silvery cascade of notes. A very satisfying interpretation of an atypical Raff movement"
and "In the Larghetto third movement, Seferinova shows that she understands that Raff slow movements aren't that slow. Although she revels in the long drawn out opening melody, she isn't afraid of piling on the drama in the central section and makes this (for Raff) uncharacteristically reserved slow movement a piece of stature and a worthy counterweight to the portentous opening Allegro"
and in summary from THE Raff experts :- "In sum, Valentina Seferinova demonstrates that she has Raff's measure. If she sometimes seems reluctant to pull out every last dramatic stop, she is undeniably impressive in the more lyrical passages and it is to be hoped that this issue is a success for Cahoots so that we can hear more Raff from her in the future."
And they award her performance 4 and a half stars out of 5 !!
So 3 different reviews of the same CD; there are differences in the opinion of the music itself - but all 3 acknowledge Valentina's performance to be of the highest level.
So not only is she an acknowledged expert in Debussy, Schubert, Rachmaninov, but Joachim Raff as well (see hidden posts above).
Another reviewer said of this CD performance :- "Valentina Seferinova makes a strong case for this largely forgotten repertoire, plays it with stylish finesse ....."

Please - how do I reflect this - and use the Joachim Raff Society's links on Valentina's article without it appearing self promotional ?
Help and advice please.
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again
An orchestral CD featuring Valentina as a soloist with orchestra is "British Composers Premiere Collections Vol. 4 - Dorothy Howell Piano Concerto" on the Cameo Classics label.
This was reviewed by the independent American based website 'Classical Lost and Found'. The reviewer is an American named Bob McQuiston. His Crocks Newsletter of 21 December 2012 at http://www.clofo.com/Newsletters/C121221.htm has the following text about Valentina "The opening concert selections feature committed performances by the Orion Symphony Orchestra under Toby Purser with pianist Valentina Seferinova in top form for the Howell." There follows more positive text referring to Valentina's performance of the piece
How do I use that on Valentina's article without appearing to be self promotional?

American Bob McQuiston of Classical Lost and Found is also a reviewer of another of Valentina's CDs, 'Music of 19thC Jewish German Composers' - Orchestral' at http://www.clofo.com/Newsletters/C090609.htm where he states " ... concerto soloist Valentina Seferinova (Jadassohn) is magnificent"
How do I reference that without it looking self promotional?
A review of the same CD by Rob Barnet of the independent 'Music Web International' at http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Dec09/brull_cc902627.htm#ixzz1vX7lZZsx sated "In Jadassohn’s Piano Concerto we are treated to a stormy attack. Heroic shrapnel flies every which way in repeated evocations of the Liszt and Schumann piano concertos. Valentina Seferinova is fully in charge and attacks the solo part with great romantic flourish. Her stonily commanding tone is unmistakable."
The unmistakable implication of his remarks is that he is very familiar as a reviewer with Valentina's performances.
How do I reference that without it looking self promotional?

I somewhat pass over a controversial review of another of Valentina's CDs (Zygmunt Noskowsi - Piano Works 1) by Jonathan Woolfe at http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2009/Nov09/Noskowski_Piano1_APO188.htm, mainly because Valentina disputes some of his remarks ("The first is quite tough and Seferinova sounds a little stretched by its demands". To which Valentina replies "Oh no I wasn't!"). Although he did remark in his summary "The performances are enjoyable ..."

A thorough in-depth review of yet another of Valentina's CDs is by Steve Arloff, again at the independent reviewers at http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2013/Apr13/Rozycki_Vol1_AP0263.htm
He has quite positive remarks to make and concludes by making these comments about Valentina's performance:- "The present disc is played by Bulgarian pianist Valentina Seferinova. She is highly thought of by the label’s producer Jan Jarnicki and with good reason for she has made a convincing argument for this unjustly neglected composer."
How do I reference that without it looking self promotional?

His comments are apposite in that one of Valentina's declared missions is to rediscover music that was either suppressed or lost due the cultural upheavals in Europe of the 20th Century due to Hitler and Stalin's attempts to eradicate Polish and Jewish ethnic culture (including it's music. remember Hitler's declaration of the supremacy of German music?)

Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again
So having provided independent assessors/reviewers of some of her recorded works/performances - I now turn to her live performances.
To be absolutely honest there's not as many as for her recordings; why?
Well - most are newspaper/magazine reviews which we have as hard copy 'press cuttings' because some of them are before widespread use of the Internet; and even today not all newspapers/magazines publish on-line.
However here is one by Bob Briggs at the independent on-line reviewers at http://www.musicweb-international.com/sandh/2010/Jul-Dec10/remembrance1111.htm of Valentina performing as a guest soloist at London's Cadogan Hall (a well known 'second tier' venue in London; Albert Hall, and Royal Festival Hall being 'first tier') on 11th November 2011 in a performance of Dorothy Howell's Piano Concerto in D minor.
I quote "Valentina Seferinova was a most persuasive soloist in Howell’s Concerto – proving her belief in the work she played from memory ..".
Just for the heck of it you can judge the audiences reaction to her performance for yourself by going http://valentinaseferinova.com/VideoPages/Concertante/HowellVideo.html (I've done it this way to try and circumvent Wikipedia's 'black listing' of YouTube videos !)
You don't have to watch the whole 8 and half minutes of the video - just fast forward to 6:53.
I think 'enthusiastic' describes the audience reaction - leading to 2 'call backs'.

Here is review of another orchestral performance (Grieg's classic Concerto for piano and orchestra in A minor op.16 ) by Mike Allen of The Portsmouth News - http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/what-s-on/gigs-music/review-havant-symphony-orchestra-at-hayling-island-community-centre-1-5517177.
Although the thrust of his article was on some politics associated with the orchestra he was still able to make a positive comment on Valentina's performance; I quote "Bulgarian-born Valentina Seferinova, now living at Waterlooville, had to work hard to try to secure the depth of tone she sought from the community centre’s piano in the Grieg concerto, but nothing could disguise the freshness of her phrasing or depth of her musical instincts."
The orchestra's chairman's newsletter had this to say about the very same performance of Valentina "An outstanding highlight was Valentina Seferinova’s performance of the Grieg piano concerto, especially the beautiful and moving slow movement"; go http://www.havantorchestras.hampshire.org.uk/newsoct13.php.

Continuing on about Edvard Grieg's classic Concerto for piano and orchestra in A minor op.16 - which has been played by countless number of soloists, with a countless number of orchestra's to a countless number of audiences - I ask you - and anyone else reading this post, just for the heck of it, to become a reviewer yourself!
You don't have to know anything about classical music; you don't have to know anything about Edvard Grieg. All you need to know is that if an audience has been particularly happy or impressed by a particular performance - then by their applause or shouts will let it be known they'd like an encore.
Normally performers know almost immediately by the applause level whether an encore is appropriate or not - the etiquette of a performer is to leave the flowers/bouquet behind to signify to the audience that they've heard and will respond to an 'encore call'.
Typically in an orchestral situation the conductor and soloist will return to play a reprise/encore of the final movement of the concerto that being played.
Every once in a while something else, something notable, will happen.
Watch Valentina's performance of Grieg's master piece (with a different orchestra) at http://valentinaseferinova.com/VideoPages/Concertante/GriegVideo.html
You don't have to watch the whole 39 minutes of the video!
Just fast forward to 30:00 to see and hear what a 'rapturous standing ovation' looks and sounds like !
Follow it as it unfolds in front of an audience of 500 or so strangers who'd never heard or seen Valentina play before
You'll notice that even the conductor didn't come back !!
Because even he knew the audience were calling for Valentina!
So to satisfy the audience she had to play a solo piece!

I challenge you - to search YouTube, the Internet for another recorded example of what you are witnessing!
You wanted independent evidence of Valentina's performance level!
How about 500 independent money paying souls giving their opinion as to whether they've had their monies worth, or not?

Regards

MLADENOVA (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Seferinova

KEEP

Summary:

I feel that I/we have successfully answered all the ‘challenges’ made to her Wikipedia article.
Former child prodigy who, (unusually/notably), went on to achieve high academic success – internationally recognised Master of Music (Theory), and Assistant Professor of Music (Performance).
Evidence of her ‘award winning’ status provided.
Independent and verifiable 3rd party references provided (at length :) – sorry, especially to Piotrus) to support the statement that she is Internationally noted for her understanding, interpretations, and live performances of Classical Romantic era composers Debussy, Rachmaninoff, Schubert, and Raff; and has, by invitation, performed live at significant relevant venues.
Noted for, in co-operation with different recording labels, her re-discovery, analysis, and world premiere recordings of the works of Jewish ethnic composers; and Polish composers (to help answer the question “Who and what came after Chopin?”) whose works were destroyed/suppressed/banned in the attempts of cultural destruction in Europe of the 20th Century caused by Nazism and Stalinism. This work and project continues
Independent and verifiable 3rd party assessments of both her recorded work, and live performances provided (at length – again sorry to those who fell asleep) which are overwhelmingly supportive of her notable talent. (But I don’t know how to refer to this ‘evidence’ in her article without appearing to breach Wikipedia’s rules on not being, or appearing to be, ‘self-promotional’).
I don’t know how Wikipedia works – but I note that the ‘Mobile’ version of her article has been free from caveats, conditions, comments, etc for the last few days suggesting to me that an ‘Administrator’ has already approved her Wikipedia article.
Can someone please do the same to the Desktop version.
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - go http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/what-s-on/gigs-music/the-nominees-on-the-guide-awards-shortlist-are-revealed-1-5734985 - Text at top of the article reads :- "For weeks the votes have been pouring in, with post arriving every day and hundreds of readers going online – so now we can reveal the shortlist".
Scroll to bottom of page to BEST CLASSICAL MUSIC ACT nominees. There are 6 'acts'. Do you recognise any name(s) ??
Q.E.D. !
Regards
MLADENOVA (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)MLADENOVAMLADENOVA (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 04:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Sue Johnson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Is Bearcat railing against local officials again? Ah well.... This AfD looks right at least. I'm failing to see any direct coverage of this woman in RS. She does have lots of mentions in the local rag though.... NickCT (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local paper covers the school board well, but there is no indication that the subject meets the WP:GNG. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Duax[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a local politician without major RS coverage. If true that she was a member of the former Wisconsin's Governor Tommy Thompson cabinet then she is definitely notable but I couldn't verify it. I checked her resume on the local Eau Claire school board and it wasn't mentioned there - if she had been in a cabinet-level position then it should have been listed on her resume there. If this position would be verified then my vote would change. Royal broil 02:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article isn't actually claiming that she was a member of Thompson's cabinet — it's claiming that her husband, David Duax, was. But even his article isn't actually claiming that for himself — and I also can't find any source which suggests that he ever actually held a cabinet position either; at best he appears to have been deputy director of a single government-owned agency. It appears that the creator of this article simply overinflated the importance of the job that her husband actually held. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long career, but nothing that meets any prong of WP:BIO. Only secondary coverage appears to be local to the town, which matches the lack of a wider claim of notability. czar ⨹ 04:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spindler[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician that also fails to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary coverage outside of local, run-of-the-mill stuff. Doesn't pass any prong of the notability guideline for people, either for being associated with a school board or for his academic career. Funny, there are actually Richard Spindlers with more coverage (no, they wouldn't meet the general notability guideline either). czar ⨹ 04:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Duax[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as city and county councillor. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a local politician without major RS coverage. Royal broil 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is just a list of offices, all of them local except one (governor's task force chairman). No mention of whether he did anything notable while in office. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS-MAX Property[edit]

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

Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't meet the Wikipedia's inclusion standard, therefore qualifies deletion for the same reason. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negoslav Vuksanovic[edit]

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

Alleged to be A& CSD eligible, however the infobox provides a few teams in red link and one with a blue link that claims a national level of play, which thorough A7 into something a conundrum. I leave it to the community to decide this article's fate, though I personally feel that this is going to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article was recreated by the author the same day it was deleted by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs), after it was nominated again, the author, Volleyballinfos (talk · contribs) removed the speedy deletion tag. It does not have any reliable sources just an external link to a subscriber volleyball site, nor could I find any to establish WP:Notability or ensure WP:Verifiability. the blue link team article is also unreferenced. I agree with TomStar81 (talk · contribs) that it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and nothing to show he's a notable volleyball player (such as playing for the national team in a major competition). Astudent0 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 04:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't cite any sources even after 6 years of being tagged. Mayn't be notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, and I can't find anything but yellow-pages-type listings and occasional product mentions. LaMona (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up press releases and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 04:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catincan[edit]

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

This site is not at all notable, has not had much success, is currently down or totally gone, and all the citations on the current page either do not actually reference Catincan at all or are just to the Catincan site itself and not an outside source Backfromquadrangle (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Site does seem to be gone. The one reasonable reference, a NYTimes article, doesn't actually mention the company. This is a good example of why it's best to wait a good bit of time before creating a WP article for a start-up ... most of them do not last, and do not have an impact. LaMona (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crowdfunding site/service of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. As above, NYTimes link is the only RS in article and does not mention Catincan. A search turned up incidental mentions, forum posts, and this brief article on crowdfundinsider.com which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donald_Goines#Novels. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Man (novel)[edit]

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

Entirety of article is an unsourced plot summary; tagged for notabillity since 2012. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald_Goines#Novels. It's unfortunate, but the fact is that most of Goines's novels are fairly obscure and never really gained much coverage. He had a definite following and he's obviously influential, but his work was largely niche and in his later career he churned the novels out so quickly that the whole "laws of diminishing returns" thing came into effect. It's really only later down the line that his work started becoming popular and even then, largely the Kenyatta series. The reason why I'm mentioning this is that this book isn't one of his popular ones and the media seems to have largely ignored it, only mentioning it briefly in relation to his work as a whole. I had a lot of trouble finding sourcing for the overall Kenyatta series article and for many of his works in general, including this one. I thought that I'd redirected this to his article, but it must have slipped my notice. TL;DNR, I couldn't find any sources for this a year ago and there aren't any now, so redirecting is the only real option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must have thought really hard about it and just forgotten to do it, since it looks like I missed a bunch no the list. I'll try to clean those up and save them if possible, otherwise I'll just redirect them to his bibliography. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 4 December 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 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Munster Junior Cup[edit]

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

Unresolved notability for six years. Non-notable rugby union. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - one cannot have a complete understanding of rugby in Ireland without including the various schools cups. Each province has its own Senior and Junior Cup. To exclude this competition would remove an important and historic competition. Pmunited (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Pmunited says this is one of four rugby cup and perhaps the Munster one does not get a much press as the Leinster Cup but there are numerous news reports online, especially in the Limerick Leader as well as being mentioned once in the Dail. Munster Rugby.ie also has meny reports on this competition. Deleting this one article means leaving a quarter of the story untold. The provincial cups are part and parcel of the development of Irish rugby and are a stepping stone for some players who start their rise to individual notability at this level. I recall that the Connacht Schools Rugby Senior Cup was also nominated for deletion for similar reasons but was kept. ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 4 December 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 19:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kawsar[edit]

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

Can't identify the significance Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Over a decade, the magazine has been found in almost all book stores and hawkers (I am introduced with this monthly since my boyhood). I strongly suggest to keep it. Sharif uddin (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of this magazine. But the page needs proper references. With a dead link and a search result ref, at present state, it can not express its notability. So either it can be properly cited or delete the page. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show some coverage in reliable sources. A magazine can exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and be popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR) but neither are in themselves reasons to keep an article. They do make it more likely that the magazine has coverage, but it's not a guarantee of coverage and there are a lot of very popular magazines out there that wouldn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 4 December 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 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 04:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before We Say Goodbye[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete: see Talk:Before We Say Goodbye#Contested deletion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some cleaning and searching and I found enough reviews for this to pass notability guidelines. I didn't find any die-hard proof that it is used in classrooms, but I do see where it's repeatedly highlighted by various school libraries, which usually suggests that the book in question is fairly well mentioned by teachers. There's probably more coverage in other languages, if anyone proficient in those languages can search for them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 December 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 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79's sources. The book has been published in multiple languages and the search results suggest there are additional reviews in some of them. One additional English language review, from School Librarian, is here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Article is now sufficiently sourced. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related article for the same reason:

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

This multi-CD concert recording by the Allman Brothers Band is not a conventional album. It's an "Instant Live" release, professionally recorded at the show and made available for sale to fans, at the end of the concert and also later online. The band has many such recordings available on their website, here. I would still say that the article is okay, but the recording does not meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, or at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. I also started a discussion about this at Talk:The Allman Brothers Band discography#Instant Live releases, and so far there's not any support for keeping this, or the other, similar article that I am also nominating here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 3 December 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 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Parcell[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as not notable Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Small-scale artist with little national recognition as yet. However they have a career of three albums over several years. Credible local sources, including BBC Introducing (a good place to find new talent getting its first exposure) have picked them up. Article quality seems reasonable - and rather more detailed than usual for a performer at this scale. So I wish them luck with the music and this seems like a perfectly appropriate topic for an article here.

As to the drive-by CSD by an anon IP, I'm saddened to see that – it's ludicrous to even suggest this as a CSD. Hiding the CSD template at the bottom of the article also looks far too close like an attempt to hide such a deletion tag in the hope that it's going to get processed without further notice. Thanks to Anthony Appleyard for putting it up at AfD as a visible forum. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 3 December 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 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Universe. This does appear to fail CRYSTAL. The redirect can be undone as soon as solid reliable sourcing emerges to confirm this event is going ahead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2015[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Crystal bol, promo The Banner talk 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a clear recreation of an earlier removed article. The Banner talk 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to the community of wikipedia. I think the article should not be deleted because it is the second nomination and honestly when was the first supported his disposal but now I think not. The article has solid references and personally I watch carefully as I do with other items of beauty contests that also edit almost there 2015 and 2014 edition is near. Meets criteria to stay. I hope so for further collaboration. Greetings.Jaam0121 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "solid references" are all related to the contestants. Not one is about the contest itself. And that is what this article is about. The Banner talk 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The website for MU states it's scheduled to take place on January 25, 53 days from now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteworthy that for the first time in history the event is postponed, ie, the winner of the 63rd edition in January 2015 will receive the title of "Miss Universe 2014" (Look for example esta about the Miss Universe "2014" contestants "[98]) even though the date is 2015. However, in 2015 will have another Miss Universe which is expected by the end of that year.Jaam0121 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is not even a date known for the 2015 version? The Banner talk 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No friend. Generally the date and venue of Miss Universe disclosed very little time before the tournament, for example, this year it was announced in October and the contest is January.Jaam0121 (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know when and where the 2015 version will be held. And at least twelve of the sources of the contestants are related sources, not independent ones. The Banner talk 10:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, the date and place not known; thus passes every year. The Miss Universe Organization is, without embaro should not adversely affect the article.Jaam0121 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we are building an encyclopaedia based on verifiable facts found in independent sources. Not on guesswork or related sources. The Banner talk 17:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. All data contained in the article are well checked and these are supported by these sources until the official website of the contest otherwise.Jaam0121 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we have WP:RS, prescribing that sources used to prove notability should be independent. At least half of the sources fails on that point. And half of the (logged-in) editors is awaiting a hammering die to this sockpuppet-case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas. The Banner talk 00:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 3 December 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 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Miss Universe. A 2015 pageant is still far from guaranteed, especially with what happened to Miss Universe 2014. Most of the sources are likewise from so called pageant forums which are far from being reliable, and those that aren't are not from independent sources (mostly the national pageant websites). GrayFullbuster (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 2014 final are only a month away, several delegates for 2015 has been selected already. We know that there will be a 2015 edition ( even if it is held in early 2016 it will be called Miss Universe 2015). I see no strong case for merging or deletion, considering that the artocle is sourced a deletion would be contra-productive.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm, the delegates are sourced, not the pageant. And most of those sources are related sources, not sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 09:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No delegates would be chosen for "Miss Universe 2015" if their was no pageant planned. Their participation and sourcing are also sources for Miss Universe 2015 and a confirmation that a pageant will take place.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, so WP:RS is cancelled? And the active sockpuppets/meat puppets is also a minor detail that can be waived? The Banner talk 22:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am here to weigh on notability and relevant of this article. Not on sockpuppet work.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Miss Universe article - Sources mostly pageant blogs, forums, etc. Cheetah255 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with all pageant articles as most main media does not report on pageants anymore. A Miss Universe 2015 will occur. Several contestants has already been chosen. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Frankly I do not care if it is re-directed or not. Simply because that in less than a month time it will be recreated when Miss Universe 2014 is over. This is simply some sort of entertainment for whoever made this AfD. Well, enjoy :-)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article: How about some AGF there, BabbaQ? The nom's not doing this for sordid entertainment any more than you're running around advocating Keep just to be disruptive. People get to disagree with you, ya know. And so do I: yeah, this is going to be in a month, but no, the sources aren't there, and they HAVE to be. WP:V's a core policy. (And the answer to "The main media isn't covering beauty pageants any more" isn't "....so that means we keep them anyway." It's "So I guess they're not very notable any more.") Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have used an entire rationale for deletion focusing on me instead of giving any good reasoning for redirecting. Great :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De beste, 1986–2006[edit]

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

This article is missing evidence that the product is notable, and all so-called "sources" are {{bsr}}. A Google search mainly finds various shops, and the fact that a product is (or isn't) available in shops does is not evidence that a product is notable. The product only seems to be a random collection of songs taken from elsewhere. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 December 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 19:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vanessa Amorosi discography. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V (Vanessa Amorosi album)[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUM: cancelled 2011 album allegedly related to 2 released singles; performer no longer with label Closeapple (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per my own nomination: 1st citation is dead link on official site (and may not mention cancellation); 2nd citation doesn't mention album at all. According to the article's own text, the purported album's label not only killed the album, but dropped Vanessa Amorosi, so the label has no apparent interest in releasing it. --Closeapple (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above from nominator; only one is allowed, which your nomination is considered as. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 4 December 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 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vanessa Amorosi discography where the fifth album is mentioned. There is no doubt that a fifth album was put together. "Gossip" and "Amazing" were from the album as confirmed in this Sydney Morning Herlad article, and the Melbourne Herald-Sun notes that the album release was pushed back due the poor reception of the two singles. These articles were the most significant coverage I could find about the album and this isn't sufficient to establish notability for a standalone article. This can be revisited if and when the album does get released. -- Whpq (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2006 in Tuvalu[edit]

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

very little content and the only YYYY in Tuvalu article. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable. Out of curiosity, this type of "YYYY in X" article falls under WP:LISTN, yes? NickCT (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 3 December 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 19:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to delete this page. There are no other year lists for Tuvalu. MozzazzoM (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Vernon[edit]

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

Tagged for notability almost seven years ago; unreferenced blp. Seems to be a case of WP:1E. I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP . Although actually there might be sonething going on here. I found this. So she never even made it to Miss Universe? That would make the page here inaccurate. There's a story here. Technically, as she won a national title for her country, and should have gone on to represent Belize at an international pageant, she is a legit subject for a stub article - although the lack of sources is a bigger issue, so delete. Mabalu (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bak Fu Pai[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art with no indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. All sources are primary. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG or that it meets WP:MANOTE. In fact it appears the article has no independent sources at all. Papaursa (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see evidence of a search having been conducted in Chinese sources for 白虎派 before even considering a deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originated this article. It's not a point of pride; I just wanted to say I started the page in hopes that it would be added to. I didn't search Chinese sources because I am functionally illiterate in Chinese. I would welcome anyone able to research Chinese to do so. Caedmon85 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I can prove it but I did do a search and found nothing. Could be several reasons for that including my own incompetence but searching the internet using a three character combination is not easy. Reading the references and a bit of digging make me question the lineage claims, it is hard for me to judge how widespread the art is (found regionally in the US?) or its notability. Are there any non-primary US references. Perhaps Caedmon85 could expand on that.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has shown this martial art has any significant coverage or meets anything in WP:MANOTE. Requiring editors to search in a language they don't speak is not a Wikipedia requirement. Jakejr (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If one can't establish notability and show significant coverage, then there's no reason to keep it. Telling other users to do it themselves is a weak argument for keeping the article. --Cold Season (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no independent coverage in the article there's no way it meets WP:GNG. My own search didn't find any significant independent coverage.Astudent0 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aami aami jani jani[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, but I decided on AfD rather than prod or bold redirect to Autograph (2010 film) or Rupam Islam because I was aware there may be Bengali sources out there that I couldn't access. Tagged for notability by Amartyabag almost 3 years ago, and no one, including me, has managed to established its notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every major failure of WP:NSONGS. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 4 December 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 19:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (remark) @ 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro, Monmouth County, New Jersey[edit]

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

The place does exist, but is identical with Marlboro Township, New Jersey. Suggested result is a merge / redirect to the parent article, which will restore the status quo that existed for the past nine years. All GNIS provides is the point where the populated place is located, which is within the township. Any content added to this article (e.g. regarding a post office), belongs in the parent article and should be merged there. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a separate community taking up a tiny part of the township, as well as a defined "Marlboro Village Historic District" (p. 41). --NE2 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The document is a potentially useful source for the township article. There may well be adequate material for an article for a Marlboro Village Historic District, but I'm not sure that it's this article. Starting it off as a section within Marlboro Township, New Jersey would allow it to be hived off on a standalone basis if it reaches critical mass. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to be willing to do this, instead choosing to redirect without a merge, I must infer that you're making a disingenuous argument. (And why the redirect of Marlboro but not any of the other communities such as Beacon Hill?) --NE2 05:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge for Beacon Hill as another content-free place article. Marlboro is worse, because there seems to be no independent way to separate the populated place from the township. As I stated "Any content added to this article (e.g. regarding a post office), belongs in the parent article and should be merged there", I am proposing a merge / redirect. When I redirected initially, there was no content -- none whatsoever -- in the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How would you separate Beacon Hill or almost any other unincorporated non-CDP place from its surrounding township? Marlboro Village has a historic district boundary, and even without that is an obvious street grid surrounded by farms and newer subdivisions. I can't even determine exactly where Beacon Hill is, except that it's presumably on Beacon Hill Road. --NE2 06:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The settlement named in the article--"Marlboro"--and the township the settlement is located in--"Township of Marlboro"--share the same name (like "New York City" within "New York State"), so confusion is possible. First, the GNIS entry for the Township of Marlboro shows that four settlements are located within the township: Freehold, Keyport, Marlboro, and South Amboy. As well, there is a separate GNIS entry for Marlboro. What's most interesting about the GNIS entry for Marlboro (the town), is that on the right side of the page there is a link to "ACME Mapper 2.0". When clicked, it zooms you to a little town (a hamlet really) called "Marlboro". But then if you back out of the map a bit, you can see a much larger overlay, which covers a great distance, and reads "Marlboro" (this identifies the township). Finally, the State of New Jersey recognizes the difference between the settlement and the township. Go to their search page and enter "Marlboro", and viola, you will see two listings: one for the town, and one for the township. Marlboro is a real place. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freehold, Keyport, Marlboro, and South Amboy are the USGS topo maps that include portions of Marlboro, not the communities within the township. "ACME Mapper", for the record, is showing USGS topos, which are one of many sources for the GNIS database. --NE2 05:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this link shows is that there are four different USGS topographic map containing the feature, which are Freehold, Keyport, Marlboro and South Amboy. The chart has nothing to say about the independent existence of the place. The New Jersey locality search shows a paired place name for virtually every township and most other municipalities. The question is not if it exists but if the article will add anything. It might, but you need to make that case and you haven't yet. New York City and New York State are clearly different places with clearly different identities. Can the same be said for the two Marlboros? Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Marlboro Village is a small community within the huge Marlboro Township. End of story. --NE2 05:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? Just how small is it? What are its boundaries? How many people live there? What's in Marlboro Village? I'm willing to see an article if there was osmething to back up all of these claims but I don't see it and I can't find it. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was nominated for deletion because "the place does exist, but is identical with Marlboro Township, New Jersey." Now the nominator is stating "the question is not if it exists but if the article will add anything". The nominator seems confused about his purpose. Any hamlet in New Jersey with a post office, railroad station, school, hotel, and multiple stores and churches--adds plenty to Wikipedia. This nominator seems confused, or the nomination was vexatious. I propose a speedy keep. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the source that NE2 has identified, and it's a useful one, there appears to be no definition of how Marlboro the claimed hamlet differs from Marlboro Township. The Marlboro Township, New Jersey article has more than 260 references, but not a single mention of a "Marlboro Village" until NE2 just added it. There might be something there, but no one has shown what it is. Alansohn (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per historic outcomes for AfD discussions of US places (WP:NPLACE) and per WP:NGEO. It is a commonly accepted standard that any reliable source reference to the existence of a place (in the US, anyway) past or present, is sufficient to show notability under the principal set forth in the very first sentence of WP:5PILLARS: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (my emphasis added) And to answer Alansohn's query above, Marlboro township has a GNIS ID of 882118 and the populated place Marlboro has a GNIS ID of 878130. The township's GNIS entry includes several distinct coordinates, one of which is for the populated place of Marlboro. Your argument that we shouldn't include Marlboro because it is included in Marlboro Township is simply faulty. By that logic, we shouldn't include either because they are already included in the article on New Jersey. And I am in agreement with Magnolia677 that either the nominator is confused or this nomination is in bad faith. Witness the vexatious argument above where the nominator cites the search page for the term "Marlboro" in Monmouth County, rather than the exact cite to the populated place Marlboro, which is prominently displayed in the article nominated for deletion here. John from Idegon (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the fact that it's a Marlboro Village Historic District, it can warrant its own page. Even stubs can be expanded, though it may take years to, however, there is enough info for a standalone page. Tinton5 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marlboro Township, New Jersey or Rename to Marlboro Village Historic District -- I am coming out of hibernation briefly to comment that nearly all significant places with differentiated local identity have been covered by CDPs in New Jersey. Few are notable enough to be found in other sources. Historical maps show the Marlboro Post Office and school district, but that is all. See here: [99]. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dauren Mussa[edit]

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

I couldn't access many of the references and those I could access either didn't mention him or had just passing mentions. There's nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists since having a good rank and heading an organization are not enough and I didn't find significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't access a number of the references given. My own search didn't turn up the coverage I believe is necessary to meet WP:GNG. I also don't see that he meets any of the specific notability criteria. Some of the claims were also dubious--like winning an Oscar for sports (as far as I know there's no such award). I'm willing to change my vote if someone can provide some good sources to support any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant accomplishments or supported claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Assem[edit]

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

non notablestudent, despite the NYT article DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It feels generous to give this a WP:TOOSOON. The article was self-created (user:Abdullahasem), and has had formatting but no content added since creation. LaMona (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a student doing some form of research. If he continues on his current course, he may well at some point be notable. However, he is not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Kasprzyk[edit]

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

He appears to have a lot of YouTube subscribers, but there's no inherent notability in that if he does not have significant coverage from reliable sources. I can't find the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps there are some Polish language sources that someone may be able to find. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gazetasredzka.pl/aktualnosci/isamuxpompa-ma-190-tys-widzow-sredzianin-zdobywa-widzow,a23974c — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about this site to say if it's a reliable source of info. Maybe someone can offer some insight. We'll need more than one reference, but this may be a start. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeta Średzka is the local newspaper for the Środa Wielkopolska County. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More:

www.mammarzenie.org/marzyciele/5660-Szymon/, inianie.pl/historia-z-pompa-w-plynie-czyli-rzecz-o-pewnym-marzeniu/ - Kasprzyk meets an ill (or sick/disabled - I'm not sure about the translation) fan
http://www.joomag.com/magazine/gos-powiatu-redzkiego-gp-15-16-2014/0820763001397580758?page=25 (see "Lechici w Środzie") - IsAmUxPompa helps Lech Poznań fans from Środa Wielkopolska to win the contest for the best choreography
edu.gazeta.pl/edu/h/Lista+30+najpopularniejszych+polskich+kana%C5%82%C3%B3w+na+YouTube - IsAmUxPompa mentioned as the 27th most popular Polish YouTuber — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe any of those above would be considered reliable sources. See reliable sources to see what one is like conceptually, or WP:VG/S for a list of commonly acceptable/unacceptable sources for video game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see the current state of Szymon Kasprzyk#Career. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos are not the way to establish notability. See my links above. You want articles that discuss the article's subject with significant detail. See WP:GNG for more information. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gazetasredzka.pl/aktualnosci/isamuxpompa-ma-190-tys-widzow-sredzianin-zdobywa-widzow,a23974c this does discuss article's subject with significant detail. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read that, so you'll have to tell me yourself if it meets WP:RS criteria. Is this a website with a long history of fact checking, editorial oversight, and established staff with credentials as writers? Or is this random content blogged by any old random person, for starters. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeta Średzka can be translated to 'Newspaper of Środa Wielkopolska'. It is a local newspaper. According to Polish Wikipedia, it has been released since 1995. Here's a photography of the printed version of Gazeta Średzka: www.wojtektattoo.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/press002.jpg. I am not the author of it. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WorldCat, Gazeta Średzka [pl] has an ISSN (1425-4034) and is in the holdings of the Polish National Library. The claim in the article is that "Today [it] is the top 40 most visited channels on YouTube" ("Dzisiaj jest w TOP 40 najchętniej odwiedzanych kanałów na YouTubie") that is verified by YouTube Top 100 Most Subscribed Poland Channels List and has risen to 20th. Nevertheless, Kasprzyk is not found in the Polish Wikipedia. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While WP@en is not limited to resources in English, topics with no coverage in English-language sources seem outside the scope. I don't understand why it isn't sufficient to have this article in the Polish language WP. LaMona (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the scope of en.wikipedia is defined by reliable English language RSes. The guideline that is applicable here is WP:N. The question is whether this topic meets GNG. There does seem to be evidence that some borderline RSes (local papers) exist. But if the only coverage these papers give to Kasprzyk is his placement as #27 in a list of top 100 Polish YouTubers then that can't confer notability. The Gazeta Średzka source may be acceptable as an RS and it does look like it does give the topic significant coverage. But we need "reliable sources" in the plural to confer notability - that's a minimum of 2 RSes that cover the topic in depth. And even with 2 we're on very shaky ground because if there is no way the article can ever progress past stub-class then it's usually a better idea to merge it with a more appropriate parent topic. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "the local newspaper for the Środa Wielkopolska County" is about as minor as you can get when it comes to mainstream-type press. Seeing as this is the only reliable source on the subject, it's pretty clear he fails the "Significant coverage" requirements. A short entry in a very, very local newspaper is not "Significant coverage". PS. This article was speedy deleted from pl wiki without even an AfD, as an admin just tagged it as "unencyclopedic" ([100])--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the guy's so insignificant in Poland that the Polish Wikipedia speedied him, then he's not notable enough for here. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States v. Eichman. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Blalock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Involved in notable events/campaigns, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD, in 2008, closed as no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say "redirect" to United_States_v._Eichman but in fact I cannot find Blalock's name in the text of the ruling, which is linked from that page. (The link on this page is dead.) LaMona (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – and redirect to United States v. Eichman. I agree that Blalock doesn't meet the criteria for a separate article, even under WP:ONEEVENT. There were many cases of flag burning and court cases around that time and he was one of a number of people in the cases. The problem is that United States v. Eichman doesn't mention him either, because it doesn't have a Background section. If necessary I will volunteer to write that section. There is enough material. For example here is an AP story, and here is a book with the statement of the ~~three~~ four protesters on the day when they were arrested. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am happy with Margin1522's suggestion. Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I have added the Background section to United States v. Eichman. I think it should be OK to redirect now. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cray cray[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make people popular.Smoshfan17 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - total nonsense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - although I've heard the term before, it's more slang than a phrase, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see any category of speedy delete that would apply. WP:G1 (nonsense) doesn't apply because the content is comprehensible. It's not clear vandalism either. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaliburton, I think in this case the admin's would understand your reasoning for using nonsense, no context, or vandalism. Even if it doesn't fit perfectly, it's pretty clear.War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - would have tagged this for speedy delete rather than afd myself. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and definitely not an urban dictionary.War wizard90 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete as a dictionary entry. I notice that Wiktionary already has the term: wikt:cray-cray. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic WP:DICDEF containing nothing worth keeping. However, Wikipedia has many articles on recent slang terms, and when sufficient sources are found to demonstrate mere usage, they increasingly tend to survive AfD. A passably encyclopedic article could probably be written on this term. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 05:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Music Academy[edit]

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

Unmitigated commercial spam masquerading as an article about an educational instiution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an established Detroit-area private popular music school with a good reputation and fairly extensive but routine "small business" coverage in the local media.The coverage is not quite significant enough to establish notability. If the sources were one level better, I would recommend keeping this article. I think the nominating statement is a trifle harsh. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 December 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, 8 December 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 02:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, non mainstream for-profit organisation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cornel[edit]

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

Second round draft pick who has never played pro. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with other recent nominations, nn player, sourced primarily ot blogs. Article created by a now blocked editor with a long history of ignoring notaiblity criteria. Reso lute 04:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Swear to heaven, it's almost a case of "If the article was created by Dolovis, odds are that the subject is NN." Fails NHOCKEY, of course, and no sign of reliable sources bolstering notability beyond the usual spate of casual mentions, WP:ROUTINE coverage and blog posts. Ravenswing 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Brassard[edit]

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

Falls short of WP:NHOCKEY. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin White (ice hockey, born 1997)[edit]

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

Undrafted player who has never played pro. He might be notable some day, or he might never be. Right now it's WP:TOOSOON. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards ... and, as in this article, was particularly intent on defying the consensus standard that players in youth tournaments weren't inherently notable. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY or GNG. Can be created if/when the player becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Leier[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY as he's never played above the AHL level and only two dozen games at that level. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. Another in a loooong line of articles of nn players created by now blocked editor. Reso lute 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yet another in a string of hundreds of NN articles created by a now-indeffed editor with a long history of defying notability standards ... and, as in this article, was particularly intent on defying the consensus standard that players in youth tournaments weren't inherently notable. Fails NHOCKEY, no sign of passing the GNG. Ravenswing 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if he ever manages to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2014–15 ECHL season. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kelly Cup playoffs[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. This should be recreated when there is some actual content to include, like the seeds or schedule. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I'm usually lenient on upcoming things but April's a bit much! so per nom & TOOSOON i'll have to say Delete –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah this is definitely a too soon situation. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2014–15 ECHL season until there is content for the article, though I wouldn't object to deletion as well. Deadman137 (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball full-career one-team players[edit]

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

Besides being poorly titled, this list doesnt seem all that notable. Why is 10 years the cut off on this? Seems arbitrary and this isnt a criteria that is usually important in baseball coverage outside of a few select individuals who played a really long time. The list article doesnt include any sources other than a link to the baseball reference home page. Spanneraol (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's kept, the title will have to be improved. I get the reason for creating this page, as in the era of free agency it's far less likely for a player to complete their career with one team. But, the pre- vs. post-free agency divide means that the cases of Jeter and Ripken aren't the same as the older ones, which throws some doubt on this page. Also, the 10 year cutoff is arbitrary. I know sportswriters have written on this subject, so if sources are produced, this could be worth keeping and fixing. Otherwise, I'd vote against keeping. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired to start this article because with Derek Jeter's recent retirement after a full career with the New York Yankees (not that I'm a Yankees fan, in fact I'm a Red Sox fan), I got to thinking it would be interesting to find out just how many players have devoted a full Major League career exclusively to one club.

So I went to work and put in a lot of research, mainly through Baseball Reference and with backup from Wikipedia articles on the individual players. And once the list was completed I wanted to share this information with any other parties that would find it of interest (surely there are millions of baseball followers out there), and I figured what better way to do that than to post it on Wikipedia! And by the way, when I didn't have time to put it into the chart format right away, someone else was kind enough to do that for me. My thanks to whoever that is.

Now I admit this is not a topic easily found on the web, or in print, or anywhere else, but think of it this way. This is a feat that not even one player in a hundred throughout all of MLB history has ever accomplished. Fewer players have spent an entire career exclusively with one club (at least long-term) than have, say, hit for the cycle or pitched a no-hitter. This is a feat that not only takes enormous talent and skill for the game, but also a tremendous amount of loyalty and dedication! If someone like Derek Jeter or Carl Yastrzemski was to tell you how proud they were to spend 20 years and more with their respective clubs, are you going to look them in the face and say to them, "That's not notable?" If a list of MLB mascots is considered notable, why not this?

As for the ten-year cutoff, basically I wanted to keep the list within reasonable length. Also, spending an entire career with a single team doesn't mean much if your career was only a few games, or one season, or even three seasons. You have to draw the line somewhere, but If you think ten years is too high a cutoff, or as you say, arbitrary, I'm flexible enough to discuss the matter. Five years might be OK.

As for the way I've titled the article, if it seems a bit awkward, well, I figured it should start with "List of Major League Baseball..." because that is how most of the MLB player lists are titled, and I thought it might be more easily found this way. But again, if anybody can figure out a better title that still conveys the subject matter clearly, I'm very willing to welcome any suggestions they may have.

I do hope everyone involved in this discussion will reconsider. If you do decide to delete the page, I still have the original document I composed on my PC that I used as the basis, and perhaps I'll send a copy of it along to Baseball Reference. I'm sure they would take an interest in this subject.71.174.177.250 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has decided anything. I certainly haven't decided to vote one way or another. I appreciate the thought and work behind this. For now, I'll point you to Wikipedia:LISTN, Wikipedia's policy on notability for stand-alone lists. It says essentially that the grouping has to be discussed in reliable sources. I think this might fit the criteria, but I'm unsure. I did a brief search and found this Sporting News article (although it looks a little click bait-y to me) which says Jeter is "one of 37 players to appear in 2,000 or more games in a career spent entirely with one team". Maybe 2,000 games played is a cut off criteria. I don't know. I do know that this subject needs more research before this AfD closes one way or the other. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthwhile article. Alex (talk) 20:53, 13 December 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change the clunky title to List of Major League Baseball players who played for only one team. The accomplishment has been noted by mlb.com, baseball-reference.com (for active players anyway), bleacherreport.com (50 greatest), and sort of by espn.go.com. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Clarityfiend notes, this is an accomplishment that receives substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is getting coverage, and overall seems to me to be encyclopedic. I wouldn't oppose changing the title or discussing the cutoffs, but overall it's a keep.Chuy1530 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antilabe[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KDS4444^Talk 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KDS444, for provoking me to improve the article! "Antilabe" is a rather obscure term and if Wikipedia would survive without an entry on it, I would not be utterly surprised. On the other hand the device [antilabe] is discussed in many scholarly publications. I have enlarged the entry and included the references (not finished yet). Rolf-Peter Wille (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Withdrawn - good show! KDS4444^Talk 02:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 05:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skyword[edit]

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

All refs are about the company's business dealings. Wikipedia is not an archive of business transactions. CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant reliable coverage. The Boston.com ref link is dead: "The page you requested has either moved or been deleted."; archived entry at [101] has one short para on the company - doesn't seem major enough to pass WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG in general. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account; neither the offered references or the coverage found through search amounts to more than routine announcements; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Guru Ki Maseet. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Kirtan Singh[edit]

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

The subject was a head of little known Sikh organization. In the article only the lead para deals with the subject. The rest of the article deal with the organization he headed and one another incidence of a land transfer where the subject has a passing mention. Most of the verifiable sources are only related to that incidence and insufficient to prove if this person is actually notable. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. We do have a short, proper article on the clearly notable mosque Guru Ki Maseet. I have removed the long, rhapsodic, extremely tenuously relevant and awful section "Guru Ki Maseet" from Baba Kirtan Singh, thus shortening it by at least half. Perhaps Baba Kirtan Singh could be redirected to Guru Ki Maseet, where he's mentioned as one of the signatories of a 2001 memorandum and as the chief of the Nihangs? It's either that or delete, for my money. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- OK, I've boldly redirected as proposed, leaving the AfD notice and the text on the page. It just doesn't seem likely that this non-existent discussion will suddenly come alive. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete while I do agree that a redirect to Guru Ki Maseet mosque solves the basic problem, I am not sure that delete isn't the best answer. I certainly disagree with preemptive action prior to the closure of an Afd. I would suggest that in the future Bishonen not take such bold action with regard to the subject of an Afd until after the Afd has closed. In passing, I believe that "Baba" is an honourific and doesn't belong in the title. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 03:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quaboag Hills Chamber of Commerce[edit]

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

Local chamber of commerce that has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a local organisation which features both the mundane (a golf event) and the promotional (member benefits); no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cuisine of Odisha#Dals and curries. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalma (dish)[edit]

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

Little encyclopedic content, poorly sourced (no references), unlinked, and no established proof of notability. A cooking recipe simply does not belong in Wikipedia. EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cuisine of Odisha#Dals and curries as unfortunately not much info on this - With the greatest of respect the nom should've been WP:BOLD and redirected himself. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider redirecting the page, but I thought that because I was a relatively novice editor I'd consult other, more experienced reviewers per the AfD process. Thanks for the advice, though. EmperorNapoléonI (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's been some cleanup, but I'm still not clear on the notability issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Davey2010. There is little reason to have an article that exactly duplicates a paragraph in another article. In that article I think it's OK, as a type of dish rather than a recipe. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above accurate analysis. Cavarrone 10:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Helfand-1] Hefland, Glen (July 14, 1999). "Art: LG Williams at the Wirtz". San Francisco Bay Guardian. Retrieved November 11, 2014.

[1]