Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 December	18 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eurosphere[edit]

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

I am not totally sure what this article even is referring to, so it is hard to know when one does a Google search on the topic if people are actually referring to this particular concept. It does have some sources. Article was tagged that it may not meet WP:GNG in December 2013. I agree. I don't even think it meets WP:NEO. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at least two of the sources are from respected players in political science. There is significant secondary coverage of this concept. Vrac (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are plenty of sources and the meaning seems clear enough. Here is Christopher Hitchens talking about secularism and the Eurosphere. You can see why he would prefer this word to Eurozone, which is about the currency. The article does need to be clarified, but there are less drastic steps. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:20, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Consulting[edit]

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

Company seems to lack notability. I'm not finding sources that show this Novus Consulting is the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as per WP:ORG. The article lacks third-party references (well, any references) that would help in the search to establish Notability. Stesmo (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability in the article and I can't find any references that show notability per WP:NORG or WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete Yawn. Yet another small IT company with no significant independent sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched as well and found the same results as nom. There's another, possibly notable firm of this name operating in Scandanavia that I found in news searches, but that one is certainly not this one. I could find absolutely no reliable independent secondary sources whatsoever to support notability of this one as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides all that, this is a promotional advertisement for the firm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources evidencing notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sung-hoon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Kirin13 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSKATE, figure skaters must have participated internationally at the junior or senior level (Park has only competed internationally once and that was at novice level) or won nationals at senior level (Park has only medaled at junior level nationals). Kirin13 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always hesitate on deleting foreign language articles, but in this case I've have to say he's not notable. While I can't read Korean, I know what skating looks like, and searching Google Images for his Korean name yields very few images that even look like skating. For comparison, searching images on the name of another articles this editor has created [1] shows that this technique is quite value even among skaters that marginally pass WP:NSKATE. If nothing else, it suggests there is someone more famous with the same name (since same names are common in Korea). However, there does seem to be a language barrier, so I'd leave this AfD open a little longer than most. If somebody can translate the AfD notification into Korean (not machine translated) in the primary author's talk, that'd probably be the right thing to do. —CodeHydro 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Codehydro's explanations. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:02, 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 redirect to Just William (1970s TV series)#Cast. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (witter) @ 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Dannatt[edit]

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

Rather minor British television actor, does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Just_William_(1970s_TV_series)#Cast. The guy became an author and editor later in life and he seems to be fairly well thought of and prolific, however his later work doesn't seem to have been the focus of any independent and reliable sources. Any mention of him in RS centers upon his role in Just William, so redirecting to that article seems to be the best solution here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 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!*} 18:45, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:29, 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 move to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hampden Theatres[edit]

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

Non-notable movie theaters. Of local interest only, these buildings are not registered historic places or otherwise historically or architecturally significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about a theatre company, which I suppose might be named "Hampden Theatres," or just the buildings?--Oakshade (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is about the buildings themselves, which went by the name "Hampden Theatre" and "Ideal Theatre". There is no indication in the article that the theatres were related in any way other than being geographically near each other (although, to be fair, the article is fairly poorly written, and the link between the two theatres might just have been assumed by the writer and never clearly stated). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy / Move to draft namespace - While there's a good argument for Theaters in Baltimore, the possibility of using one page's content to start another article on a distinct parent subject seems outside the scope of AfD as I understand it. The question is about what to do with this article about specific theaters/buildings ("Hampden Theaters"), and I don't think it makes sense to keep. That said, I do think it's reasonable to userfy this or move it to the draft namespace to preserve the work/content ("move" implying a possible name/scope change). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy – per Rhododendrites. There's a great nighttime picture of these theaters on a Facebook page cited in the article. They are almost next door to each other. I love these old theaters, but the article doesn't quite make the case for notability. Perhaps after the forthcoming book mentioned in the article comes out. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Roberts (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep An interesting one, this. Clearly fails NFOOTY, and the Newcastle United profile page is very light on information; however, Here Is The City Sport did a fairly decent length piece on him, and a Eurosport official blog also gives him a paragraph. There's also a fair few local sources that could be used to add to the article, particularly this Sunderland Echo source, which isn't routine at all (game didn't involve Sunderland, so it is noteworthy that they'd choose to cover a Newcastle United player) and is pretty decent. I'm inclined to say Weak Keep based on these things, or at least userfy it somewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. There is certainly some coverage, but I am not convinced that there is either a sufficient level of reporting on the player or that it really goes much further than routine "look out for this promising young player soon"-type journalism. Fenix down (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are absolutely no reliable third-party sources, and there is no indication that the subject meets notability guidelines. An internet search did not turn up any major mentions. --Biblioworm 17:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eggslut[edit]

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

I came across this article when it was in this state rather than what I turned it into. I cannot find any sources that suggest that this dish or this food truck are notable. It seems to have been featured as a fad in Japan, which explains why it has a page at ja.wp (ja:エッグスラット), but their standards of inclusion are lower than ours (and the article seems to be a cross-translation of some sort). —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the US, it verifiably has a store in LA. This store has been referenced multiple times in various sources, but I'm not certain how many are reliable; [2][3][4][5]. It also got quite a hefty piece in The Independent, which is definitely an RS; I think this place meets GNG just based on the English sources, let alone anything to do with the Japanese side of the fad. It probably needs indefinite semi-protection though, just due to the name and the amount of vandalism it already receives. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep with the independent there are multiple sources from different countries that have covered significant aspects of the restaurant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- also recognition by Bon Appetit as one of top 10 new restaurants of the year. [6] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a fad *scream* The truck is here! brb buying one :p.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Half of those are blogs. I think. Never heard of Latte.la before, but I know naver is just an aggregator.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an issue here is that are we going to use the article to talk about the restaurant or the dish that people in Japan have named after the restaurant based on its signature dish?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we could cover both, since it is a signature dish. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the dish is just "The Slut". They turned it into "eggslut" in Japan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, coverage in CBS News, the New York Times, The Independent, and being listed as one of the top ten new restaurants in the nation pretty much ensures notability. --Biblioworm 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the Eggslut. It sells eggsluts. It's also a fairly famous restaurant producing something that's apparently popular enough to pop up in Japan. We could do with a separate article on the dish, but that's kind of irrelevant in this discussion. অমিত talk 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sell eggsluts. It sells "The Slut", which has become known in Japan as an "eggslut" per some international genericisation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that ruins the joke. অমিত talk 18:00, 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 Porcelain Black. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mannequin Factory[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." The release date, if the article is any indication, has been postponed for years - despite the infobox listing the release date as November 2014, the album still has yet to see release. What's more, this album fails the GNG as most of the sources used here are not about this album - but rather are about the artist. That demonstrates the notability of the artist, but not this album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist (or just delete) until this sees actual release. This closely resembles a Wikipedia article, but doesn't stand up as one under closer examination. I'm quite sure it'll warrant an article on release - although definitely not the present article - but not right now. (This reminds me of the ridiculously overdetailed Jessica Simpson articles several years ago.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Porcelain Black until and unless it gets released and/or more sources. There is a lot of good information here, and there's no sense in deleting it rather than trimming it back at a later date when the article passes WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kittrell[edit]

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

Delete. No notability per WP:ENT. Rayukk (talk) 21:18, 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 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies under WP:BASIC. (I am article creator.) Brycehughes (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only notability this kid has is uploading a rage video to YouTube which gathered many views. The article is poorly sourced, you don't even have a reference for his birthday. Rayukk (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regrettably Reality TV 'stars' have a depressing amount of in-depth coverage and therefore pass the wp:GNG Neonchameleon (talk) 16:21, 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 02:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:35, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:37, 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 Renegade Kid. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cult County[edit]

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

Failed kickstarter for an indie horror game. It's been over half a year and there's no new indication of when or even if this game will ever be made. If it can get made, then the article can simply be made again. Until then, we should delete. -WarthogDemon 23:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Renegade Kid. The article for the company was severely out of date but I've updated it to mention this game. It looks like it did get some mention in RS game sites, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON for this to merit its own article. The company does have plans to make it but until there is more coverage, this doesn't merit more than a redirect to the main article. I figure that we could redirect with history and when/if the game releases, we can always un-redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 3 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) 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 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 01:44, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79, WP:TOOSOON. The company article already has a couple of sentences about this unreleased game, which is enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IGN says that it was canceled, but that's a terribly written article, so who knows what's going on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to these two tweets: [7] and [8], it seems like this project has, as I suspected, been cancelled with no plans of ever being made. -WarthogDemon 00:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to studio. There's enough information out there to at least warrant a redirect. The information is already in that article, so a merge isn't really necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to studio. There is enough info there to make deletion unnecessary and if by some chance the project is later revived the article can be recreated with very little hassle.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afinată[edit]

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

Although it has articles in two other languages, they and this have no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Basically no content except a one-sentence definition. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. It exists, but only finding passing mentions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NAD, just a dictionary definition, or as editor MelanieN would have it WP:DICDEF. Relisters Note: This is straight forward and does not require a great deal of participation. But if you think that it needs more, participate, don't relist. --Bejnar (talk) 14:59, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (banter) @ 20:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E04 expressway (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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

No references in the article and no evidence of notability for the subject. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ keep: Numbered roads are usually notable, although I'm going by WP:ROADOUTCOMES which only lists those in the west. From what I've read, unsourced articles should be improved if possible rather than automatically deleted. Sources could probably be found for this road; the project exists as a firm proposal and construction is under way, so it's not just WP:CRYSTAL. The Sri Lankan Ministry of Highways, Ports and Shipping confirms the project exists at least, and government sources are generally treated as reliable. That at least should be in the article as a start to sources (and in fact there are four other sources which I've placed on the talk page --- I'm on my way to bed but someone can fit them in and use them to expand the article). (Having seen those, I've struck the tentative.) LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major expressway project, if not the largest to date in Sri lanka http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=Work_on_Colombo_Kandy_leg_of_Northern_Expressway_20140831_01, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-03/05/c_133163825.htm. The article's references are all wrong, including some of the information in the info box which needs to be corrected, nonetheless the article should be kept given its importance.----Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references that the highway is planned. I couldn't find any that construction has started or most of the details in the article. Some of the article's information is contradictory. As a planned major expressway, with references, it should stay. If any info is added, there must be refs. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Interstate 11 as precedent of an article about a major highway that has not yet been designated/built/planned. This is what the article looked like when nominated at AFD. –Fredddie ™ 05:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that we're WP:NOT a crystal ball, but there are reliable sources for this one. --Rs chen 7754 06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a significant piece of state infrastructure, for which considerable planning and design has been completed, all of which can be verified. From the sources it is clear the the government is committed to its construction and that the project is likely to commence in 2015. Dan arndt (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced: Still say Delete I posted this proposal and in spite of all the comments above I'm not convinced. The notability criteria for a road are clear Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Streets.2C_roads.2C_and_highways From that section: "Every street, road, and highway is shown in some atlas or detailed street map somewhere. Therefore, inclusion in such a directory does not constitute notability. A street, road, or highway is notable if it is covered by one or more or featured in two or more reliable sources from outside the immediate area where it is found." My bolding. So there is a simple question: where are the 1-2 "reliable sources from outside the immediate area where it is found". If they don't exist yet then this topic isn't notable. Period. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is not an official page, and secondly, even if that was true, what about the source from China mentioned above? --Rs chen 7754 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand: it's a failed proposal and marked as historical. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say a consensus has been established in favor of keeping the article, how do we close this deletion proposal? ----Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eng.M.Bandara: - We need to wait for an uninvolved admin or user to decide on that and close. Participants in the discussion aren't meant to make the final decision to close an AfD (see about non-admin closures). LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is a major infrastructure project, and we have multiple WP:RS that construction work is imminent or has already started. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:07, 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 keep. Note that I struck an incorrect date in the nomination (the discussion was started on 10 December 2014). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Munro[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Cited in passing in a few news articles and a book, recipient of a minor award. Mrfrobinson (talk) ~~20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)~~ 16:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Widely quoted in the Canadian press in hundreds of newspaper articles, in the last three decades as an activist and recently as a transit blogger. There are numerous profiles on him :

Margaret, Daly (29 March 1979). "Let 'transit fan' sit on TTC board, Sewell urges". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest. Retrieved 10 December 2014. - temporary pdf link
Kalinowski, Tess. (20 December 2008). "Jolly old revered transit activist; Three decades after Steve Munro saved city's iconic streetcars, his influence continues". Toronto Star. Retrieved 10 December 2014.
Gray, Jeff (5 April 2005). "Streetcar activist wins Jacobs prize". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest. Retrieved 10 December 2014. - temporary pdf link - NQ (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As NQ noted above Munro is respected and routinely quoted by journalists who specialize in transit. Nomination asserts Munro is "cited in passing". I agree, if Munro only press coverage was being cited in passing, in association with a single transit issue, he would not rise to the level of wikipedia notability. But Munro has been a respected and routinely cited source for transit journalists for decades. Matt Drudge and Perez Hilton could be called mere bloggers -- if one ignored the press coverage their writing triggers. When multiple transit journalists, who meet our criteria for being considered verifiable, authoritative sources, writers who we would cite as references, have all independently chosen to respect and quote Munro, that makes him a notable transit expert.
This article was read over 800 times in the last 90 days. I direct our nominator's attention to two peaks around October 26th and November 17th. Nominator, those peaks probably represent outside readers who read a newspaper article where he was quoted, and turned to the wikipedia to look him up. Would potential wikipedia readers, who read the newspaper articles which routinely quote or cite Munro, and then turn to their trusted wikipedia to find out his background, benefit by the deletion of this article. Yeah? How exactly? Geo Swan (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the Jane Jacobs Prize, by itself, doesn't confer notability, he appears to have gotten enough Canadian media attention to merit inclusion, eh? Bearian (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is probably no civilian more active in promoting better transit service in the Greater Toronto Area. Politicians might receive more press coverage, but Steve Munro is the catalyst for much of what actually gets done. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment - I for some unknown reason originally closed this as keep without giving it the entire 7 days (not sure why!) - So out of courtesy I've relisted for the nom, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More notable than most municipal pols. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hundreds of press mentions show up on a basic news search (not seeing "a few"). Multiple independent reliable news sources label him "transit expert" and "transit writer". Press coverage looks like it covers decades, as well as recent ongoing coverage, including profiles, which is more than WP:GNG advises. The nominator's argument is slightly flawed, as the subject is not restricted to only meet the sub-guideline advice of "Creative professionals" when he meets everything in WP:GNG proper. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Call for closure -- No one, other than our nominator, has voiced a delete, and nominator hasn't returned here to offer any counter-arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazo Bravo[edit]

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

Non notable musician, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable for sure. On Armenian Wikipedia i've also nominated it for deletion. --Eurofan88 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable performer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.14.229 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of celestial bodies by galactic coordinate system[edit]

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

This list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of celestial objects known (such a comprehensive list would be longer than all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom is right, this is a hopelessly enormous (dare I say astronomic) list specification which will certainly never be completed, nor should it be included per WP:NOTDIR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, Wikipedia is not a directory. This will become an unmaintainable list. These bits of information should be added to the articles about the celestial bodies themselves. Trysha ^(talk) 19:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly agreed. However, let's now make a discussion about how we will put galactic coordinates of objects in their infoboxes. That would be a huge discussion. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if delete If the consensus is to delete, I'd like to ask to have this moved to my userspace. It took hours to compile that information and I'd hate to see it deleted. —CodeHydro 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any problems with that. If the closing admin elects not to userfy for whatever reason, I'd be happy to do it for you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to note that, if I remember correctly, this list nearly went to AfD in the past per WP:NOT, but the would-be nominee backed down after I added to the intro paragraph that the list should be limited to objects "that have their own article on Wikipedia" and purged it of objects that didn't have an article. Yes, WP is not an indiscriminate directory, but this article does discriminate and offers stargazers a means to find notable objects in a particular direction in the sky. Otherwise it'd be a needle in a haystack searching through a list of nebulas to find out the name of a neighboring object. —CodeHydro 22:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Codehydro. Well, for me it indeed hurts to see your own hard work being deleted, but you must realize some things.

1. The list is limited — You must know that there are billions of celestial objects known. Trying to fit them in a single list would probably took years of improvment, if not impossible, to compile. Such a list is so huge that it would never be maintained, as per StringTheory11. If you think it is limited only for notable celestial objects, just take the 7,000 naked-eye stars.
2. Wikipedia has 30,000 astronomical articles — Tied with #1, Wikipedia is a very large website. It would be practically challenging to include celestial objects in an assorted list.
3 The list is directorial (p.s. correct me if I'm wrong) see WP:NOT.

Now, if what you only want is to indicate the galactic coordinates of celestial objects, I suggest if we put the coordinates to the articles themselves. I mean, put it in their infoboxes so readers who use galactic coordinates may get info about them.

Just post below if you want to say something. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, if the community would rather have it the infoboxes then the closing admin may just bump the article into my userspace and I'll find the time to add a new parameter into the infobox template and transfer the info to their respective articles sometime after the holidays. —CodeHydro 14:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea to me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy as requested. That is an indiscriminate list of coordinates, which in principle would cover every one of the > a billion astronomical objects currently known (and many more as yet undiscovered). It also duplicates information which is freely available elsewhere e.g. on SIMBAD. If someone wants to add those coordinates to the articles on each of the objects, I would have no objection. But a standalone list is totally contrary to WP:NOT. Modest Genius ^talk 15:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's basically an indiscriminate list, destined to be abandoned and alone amongst the myriad other unmaintainable lists. Let it go with its dignity intact. ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:44, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Rades[edit]

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

After two years there is still no claim of notability and no reliable sources provided in the article. A search for any mention of article subject in multiple places found no coverage in reliable sources. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. There's no indication of significance whatsoever nor can I find any references that demonstrate notability. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 04:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for speedy previously and also survived WP:PROD with a promise of improvement which has not happened. So I nominated for long-form deletion. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 14:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The reason given on the Talk page was not as a musician but as an advocate for Tourette syndrome. That may be admirable, but unfortunately it's not sufficient. WP:WORTHYCAUSE – Margin1522 (talk) 12:03, 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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barauni-Samastipur-Muzaffarpur-Hajipur line[edit]

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

No relevant content The Banner talk 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A stub article with no content. Trysha ^(talk) 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to Tanmay Tarun (talk · contribs). Seems pretty obviously under construction by the author, albeit incrementally and slowly. Author seems to be at least semi-active in improving it, and it doesn't hurt anyone if we just move it to draftspace. Deadbeef 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:AGF and WP:BITE as above. KenBailey (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are we waiting for? Userfy it. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:AGF and WP:BITE. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:08, 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. No objection to subsequent creation of a dab page. Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason was Unsourced since 2009 - the only source is a dictionary entry. I checked several Japanese dictionaries (daijisen, daijirin, Nihon Kokugo Daijiten) and none of them makes any mention of it being an honorary title - daijs only says "剣術にすぐれ、奥義を極めた人。" (person who is extremely skilled at fencing). It's telling that there's no entry for this in the Japanese wikipedia. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might work better as a list, if we don't have one already; the Japanese Wikipedia does have a dab page at ja:剣豪 that leads to ja:剣豪人物一覧 ("List of [Japanese] master swordsmen"). Dekimasuよ! 20:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese Wikipedia also has ja:昭和の剣聖 ("Kensei of the Showa period") which is more specific to kendo. Dekimasuよ! 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a collection of original research regarding both the claimed definition of kensei and the list of names who are supposedly kensei. --DAJF (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly needs more references than just a single dictionary reference - I think the original PROD was correct. The Japanese articles mentioned above are not the same thing and a lot of what was written in the article is different from my understanding - it really isn't a title as such just that occasionally it was a term used in association with a particular swordsman. Sort of like calling the occasional King 'the Great'. Without supporting references I would call original research. A wiktionary entry at best.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase gets very few hits on Google or the Japanese wikipedia. The Japanese article for Miyamoto Musashi does not use the phrase to describe him, but the article for the Musashi Museum does. Regardless, I do not think this is a very notable term. Regarding the reference to the Kenkyusha dictionary, I understood the reference being to the term that is being compared to, Kenshi. I think I have access to that dictionary (but perhaps not the same edition), so I will check which term is actually printed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into a dab page. We've got Kensei (horse), Kensei: Sacred Fist, and several BLPs, such as Kensei Mizote and Kensei Hasegawa. If it gets deleted, I might just create the dab myself. If I can remember, that is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea, but I think it should happen after what's there now is deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - I was watching for this if NinjaRobotPirate couldn't remember.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:06, 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. Statements that the topic meets inclusion criteria are countered by statements that the criteria are not met. On looking at the criteria against the points raised, it is clear that the delete arguments are well founded and based on detailed analysis, while the keep statements are mainly assertions, not based a detailed reading of the guidelines. The awards the topic has received are not significant, and there are not enough independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth to meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Jaymes[edit]

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

Jayden Jaymes fails WP:Pornbio. Her AVN awards were in bogus categories. She has no mainstream popularity (appearing on MTV is not enough). She has no major contributions to pornography. Redban (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She passes WP:PORNBIO because she has won a well-known and significant industry award; AVN's Best Body fan award in 2014, and she has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media; she has a lot more than just an MTV appearance. Winning two fan voted awards over a period of five years is evidence that she also passes WP:ENTERTAINER's criteria #2 which states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Fan-Awards is enough; it simply shows that many people went online and clicked on her name. It's akin to citing google search totals. She also fails WP:GNG. The sources on her page are iafd, imdb, jaydenjaymesxxx, fameawards, AVN, XBiz, and Fameawards, all of which are not independent. The one reliable, secondary, independent source would be Jezebel.com, and this article focuses on Jayden's performance in MTV:True Life, not her pornography career. Redban (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All the current IMDB citations in this article here prove is that she was in a few, mostly minor, mainstream media appearances, although she was indeed featured in the MTV True Life TV episode that she was in. All of the citations to some of her apparent, past blog posts are currently dead, and the info that they supposedly cite doesn't really add any notability to her anyways. The real relevant standard for sources here is that they are independent of the subject of the article, which here is Jayden James, not the industry that a subject happens to appear mostly or partially in. Guy1890 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As said by others: as she has won several AVN awards, she passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2014, 19:00 CET
Keep per everyone above - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was originally closed as a clear Keep by myself, however, the NAC closure was contested as "too early". I've reverted myself and this AfD is again open for discussion. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of heat generated over other behavior by the nominator, but that shouldn't obscure the subject's failure to satisfy PORNBIO or the SNG. As WP:KEEP states, "questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination"; some of the boilerplate keep! votes reflect anger at the nominator's action more than the pertinent notability guidelines. At least one, probably more, are based on the mistaken belief that scene awards count toward notability.

She's actually most notorious for the slightly creepy fact that she took her porn name from Britney Spears' younger son, who had just been born shortly before the subject began working in porn.

James fails PORNBIO #1. NightMoves awards don't count, scene awards don't count, and body/body parts awards have been regularly rejected in past discussions, whatever the awarding organization. "AVN Fan Awards" are not AVN Awards, but a website poll created just last year which have not been shown to be well-known or significant. For example, "AVN Award" gets nearly 600 GBooks hits. while "AVN Fan Award" gets only 2. There is no claim she meets PORNBIO 2. She fails PORNBIO 3, with no more than a brief appearance in a single episode of an MTV series; her movie credits consist of no more than unbilled roles as unnamed generic characters "victim", "stripper", "hot tub girl". She fails the GNG, with no independent sourcing beyond passing mentions, credit lists, directories, and nomination/award announcements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:45, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My vote has absolutely nothing to do with Redban's behavior, I voted "keep" because Jaymes passes WP:PORNBIO. There is no consensus to exclude body awards or AVN's fan awards from PORNBIO. HW often claims in porn biography AfD's that an award has been "regularly rejected in past discussions" without providing a single AfD discussion resulting in "delete" as evidence for his claims. And don't try to degrade the value of the AVN Award's fan voted categories by claiming that they aren't real AVN Awards, because they clearly are real AVN Awards. Also, AVN added fan voted categories to their awards ceremony in 2011, not last year, meaning that the upcoming AVN Awards ceremony will be it's fifth year. Here's a Las Vegas Sun article covering the 2013 AVN Awards ceremony. That article mentions that there were 144 AVN awards given out that night, but only specifies the winners of a few categories, among them are Riley Steele's wins for Favorite Porn Star and Favorite Body (the same award Jaymes won), which are AVN fan awards. And that Las Vegas Sun article isn't just mentioning random awards. They only mentioned winners for some of the biggest categories like the male and female Performer of the Year winners and the Best Celebrity Sex Tape win for Octomom. LA Weekly also views April O'Neil's AVN fan award win as worthy of notice. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in all orifices. Article has 28 refs, but the large majority of them are smut-trackers, with the few remaining being blogs (including the one piggybacking off LA Weekly). Therefore, article solidly fails WP:PORNBIO's third requirement: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." XBIZ and Peeperz are not "notable mainstream media".--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hosted Network[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. The article written by the company's Marketing Coordinator. reddogsix (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. Seems like an advertisement. Nothing in the media seems to have ever referenced this company other than their own press releases. Trysha ^(talk) 18:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No reliable sources evidencing notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CORP. only trival coverage and related sources. See WP:CORPDEPTH --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

French Woods Festival of the Performing Arts[edit]

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

One reference, list of alumni/parents and overview are unsourced. No indications of notability (even if the alumni/parent list gets referenced) Primefac (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's apparently been the subject of a documentary? Does that help? DS (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the NYT treatment, I found and added two in Playbill (both entirely about the camp) and one in Backstage (like the NYT, this is on multiple camps, but French Woods is the first of 5 programs profiled, each in multiple paragraphs) and a thing by Music Theatre International. I believe that's enough for it to demonstrably pass GNG. I also tightened up the list of alumni a bit and referenced those I could; I haven't searched specific names + French Woods but there are now enough referenced that it would still be an impressive list if those for whom no reference can be found were omitted. Different names in each article on the place, for the most part. On the other hand, the reliable sources don't make a big thing of listing campers' parents, so I junked that. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 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, Mz7 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clears GNG thanks to Yngvadottir's search and inclusion of solid RS's. Deadbeef 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir. Now passes GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:13, 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 keep. Mr.Z-man 14:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Freyer[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability - the article is also a borderline copyvio of this and this. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Very little apparent coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He does get a substantial article in the Observer and a significant percentage of another in the NYT. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is this, which says "His work has been reviewed in The New Yorker, The Sunday London Times, Art Forum, Print Magazine and NBC’ s The Today Show. His first book All My Life for Sale was optioned by Scott Free Productions and the Oscar nominated writer/director team Shari Berman and Robert Pulcini are attached to write the screenplay and direct the feature film adaptation." Along with the NYT and Guardian pieces that puts him well over the bar for good, in-depth RS. On his own website he appears to be too modest to list those sources, so it may take some digging to find them. The article needs to be updated. And the lead isn't borderline, IMO it's flat-out copyvio. It should be thrown out and completely rewritten. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:48, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I think this current sourcing makes it squeak by. I took care of the copyvio. Northamerica1000, is this enough votes to close the AfD? Or should we ask Mandarax to weigh in? Drmies (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I found another book source with information about the subject ([9]), which along with the The New York Times and The Guardian articles are all about one event, the subject's project of selling all of his possessions on Ebay. As such, thus far the sources all demonstrate notability only for one event (see WP:BLP1E), which does not support an article. Perhaps the subject can qualify for an article per WP:NACADEMICS if evidence is available to support this. Also, it appears that the subject has authored a book [10], so perhaps the subject may meet WP:AUTHOR, again, if evidence is available that supports this notion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we actually reading the same article and sources? I don't see anything here that qualifies this person as notable -- at least not yet. A rather light-weight NYT article, one page in a book.. the article in the Guardian is the most substantial, but they are all about the same event/performance art piece of him selling his belongings on ebay. So he's essentially done one thing that got some attention. I'm not sold. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per WP:BIO1E. The subject is only notable for one event. See my comment above for more context.~~ NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 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, Deadbeef 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Northamerica1000, LaMona, as per WP:AUTHOR, notability is likely to be present if "the person has created... a well-known work...that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In the case of authors, considering their writing of one book as a BLP1E event is not standard practice. If an author's book has attracted multiple independent book reviews, then it is likely that the author is notable. In this case, Freyer's book All My Life For Sale has attracted book reviews in Newsweek, Guardian, CityPaper, Portland Mercury, Seattle PI, apart from others. This is enough to qualify Freyer's notability on AUTHOR. Wifione ^Message 19:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – (Struck my !vote above): Passes point #3 of WP:AUTHOR, per the reviews posted herein by User:Wifione. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 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 redirect to Overland_Park,_Kansas#Parks_and_recreation. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Valley Recreation[edit]

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

Local recreation organization that does not appear to be notable outside of the region. Only source cited is its own website; I couldn't find other sources to support notability elsewhere. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 17:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete no indication of notability--at least, not on the scale required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:33, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Overland Park, Kansas – Parks and recreation, which presently does not mention the city agency. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 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 16:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL this one is decided. If you really think it's undecided at this point, rather than re-list try entering a comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose I would be alright with a selective merge, to get rid of the weasel-worded advertisement, such as "one of the finest baseball/softball complexes in the state.", providing there is a volunteer. It has one reference that returned a 404 and one external link as a reference. If we keep it we might have a hard time explaining why the other 19,300+ towns (US) (and no telling how many in the world) can't have an article on their park. @ Paul, Good one. I thought it might be a backlog thing. Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 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. Delete based on the argument but the sourcing looks marginal so it probably would not take much to be found for this to be restored so stipulating that not DRV is required for recreation with new sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Pynford[edit]

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

Some coverage, but I could not establish that this clearly promotional, SPA COI created article meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Weak Delete - Following ShulMaven's improvements the article looks a little better. I'm still leaning towards delete though. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the criterion that applies is WP:CORP, which this company probably meets.ShulMaven (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish that if corporations put up articles about themselves, they would at least attempt to write good articles;-)ShulMaven (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets WP:CORP, its an engineering firm that seems often to work on projects that attract the public eye and are covered in general circulation media. Stuff like moving historic lighthouses.ShulMaven (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up, improved, sourced article. Nom might want to take another look. This firm was easy to source, more could be done.ShulMaven (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ShulMaven: - Out of curiosity, have you found any sources not related to that lighthouse move? Seems sorta like WP:BLP1E to me. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Added material about a station on the underground that they're doing, and about an interesting-looking historic building renovation in Leeds. Was also able to source the series claims made in the lede (article was pretty obviously written as self-pormotion by someone at the firm) about the types of engineering the firm specializes in. all of this took about 20 minutes.ShulMaven (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add in extensive outside validation for the firm's expertise found in technical publications. But neither did I make a thorough search of popular ones. Just a quick google.ShulMaven (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 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 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. The company is mentioned in coverage about projects that it does, but that's what it is: a bare mention. And except for the BBC, the references are not from broadly-based or mainstream sources. WP:CORP requires significant coverage ABOUT the firm, not passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 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 16:00, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sken Kaewpadung[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria for martial artists and there's a lack of any significant independent coverage in reliable sources.Mdtemp (talk) 19:39, 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]

Keepadditional sources have been added to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references show significant independent coverage of him. They are all passing mentions of him when talking about other fighters plus one article in a local paper saying he would be giving a seminar. None of these show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I seeing passing mentions, but nothing close to meeting WP:GNG and he doesn't appear to have been a notable kickboxer (as defined by WP:KICK). Papaursa (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few passing mentions are not enough to prove notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have some local notability. Was the article creator notified? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 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, Deadbeef 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I was notified I thought that the references were good enough to establish notability and appearing in Batman was enough to establish notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Some local notability" is not grounds for keeping an article. There is no significant coverage that shows he meets GNG and nothing to show he's notable as a martial artist. Jakejr (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and he definitely doesn't meet WP:KICK. Astudent0 (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. I support the comments of Mdtemp, Papaursa and Jakejr. --Bejnar (talk) 05:45, 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. Wifione ^Message 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucilene Caetano[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage. Most references are company announcements.Mdtemp (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The coverage seems to focus on her getting and changing jobs, but it's weak on explaining why she's notable. I don't think that just appearing on TV makes someone notable. If kept, the article needs to be rewritten. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Lacks the coverage required by GNG and I don't see any real claims of notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notableish in her own country as a TV presenter, having a martial arts side is not a reason to delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 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, Deadbeef 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the coverage necessary to meet GNG. I agree that martial arts has nothing to do with her notability, but simply being on TV is not grounds for automatic notability. Jakejr (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete May be notable, but I can't find the supporting evidence for it and the article doesn't give me enough to say WP:GNG is met.Astudent0 (talk) 19:44, 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 Theodore Beale. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Throne of Bones[edit]

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

Theodore Beale, who writes and blogs under the name "Vox Day", meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I fully grant that. However, I do not believe that a novel he has written becomes notable simply by virtue of having been written by him. If it can be shown that A Throne of Bones meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, I will willingly retract this deletion request; however, I have looked around online and I have not found anything that would indicate this. Reviews exist, yes, but they are from sources that are not generally accepted as sources of notability: personal blogs, Amazon's "buy this book" page, forum posts, Goodreads, the publisher's own site, an interview with the author... plenty of things for facts, but nothing that shows notability (a key distinction). Even though the article links to what is described as a review at WorldNetDaily, it's actually an announcement by Mr. Beale that his novel has been released. As best as I can tell, there's no coverage that's not either a) linked to those who benefit financially from sales of the book, b) crowdsourced, or c) on personal blogs; that said, I am willing to be proven wrong in this regard.

Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Mr. Beale's work, so that makes it all the more important that I do this as fairly and as openly as possible, in full accordance with procedure. DS (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Any searchers will have to specify the author, as there is a similarly titled work by Brian McNaughton entitled The Throne of Bones, which will give false positives. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author's article. I just can't find anything to show that this particular book has notability outside of Day himself. Day is most assuredly notable, but this book hasn't received reviews or notice in any outlets that would really be considered to give notability, at least not enough to where this work would pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. We do not delete plausible redirects on grounds of notability alone (WP:R). Where an author is notable, but a book is not, the book will normally be redirected to the author (WP:BKD). In this case, any potential for confusion with the similarly, but not identically, named book by McNaughton can be adequately dealt with by means of a disambiguation hatnote. James500 (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused- are you arguing for this to be a redirect with history to the main article or are you arguing for this to be retained as an article independent of the main article for the author? If so, then rather than arguing "do not delete" you need to instead say "redirect with history". Saying "do not delete" implies that you think that the article should remain in the mainspace. As far as redirects go, this article is not a redirect- it's an article. It could be a redirect if the best AfD arguments are to make it into a redirect to the main article, but it's actually quite common for an AfD to end with the article getting deleted and then re-created as a redirect to the main article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, "do not delete" does not mean "keep". It means "I am satisfied that this article should not be deleted, but have not yet decided whether it should be kept or whether it should be redirected (with or without merge)". As far as I can see, the only reason to delete and then redirect an article would be if the entire page history (ie every revision individually) qualified for revision deletion (REVDEL) which should be an unusual outcome. I think it should be clear that I am saying that I can't see an argument for an outcome "delete and then redirect", which I would only endorse in exceptional cases. If I had my way, this type of nomination would automatically be procedurally closed with instructions to go and discuss the possibility of a blank and redirect (with or without merger of content) on the talk page of the article where it is supposed to be discussed. James500 (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. I usually just label those as "redirect with history", mostly since the label "do not delete" is predominantly used by people trying to argue against the article being deleted or redirected in any aspect. It was just a little confusing, is all. I do agree that this probably should have just been redirected before bringing to AfD, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has minimum sources needed for notability. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? I honestly don't see it. DS (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No coverage in WP:RS, No significant holdings in worldcat. Would not object to a redirect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd accept redirect, but the amount of coverage is very low. Article has minimum sources needed for verifiability but not notability. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:NBOOK. "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. --Bejnar (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - The only thing separating this novel (aside from the irascibility of its author) from some others I like (and which have probably tenuous Wikipedia articles) is its contemporaneousness. The existing stub is an appropriate compromise.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing for notability because WP:ITEXISTS, then that isn't really a good argument for inclusion. The book does indeed exists, but existing does not automatically confer notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a sucker for fantasy novels. (Disclosure: I have not read this one, but note that it is well-regarded in reviews.) In any event, I do not like the slippery-slope I am seeing here, in which roving editors with sharp axes and nothing better to do begin cleaving out swathes of underrated material possessing at least nominal merit, objectively speaking. Meanwhile, if I may digress, the AfDs are flood-filled with "grade-Z" pornstar articles which appear to be passing muster. -- Is this the Wikipedia we want?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Раціональне анархіст: Good question, and my answer is yes, emphatically yes. I have no use for pornstar bios and the people who care about them likely have no use for the mathematical bibliographies that I care about, but we share a common understanding of what an encyclopedia is: a summary of existing, reputable, published, third-party work. The problem with this article is that we aren't able to find any independent reviews of it. Were we to create an article, we would be left with what the author says about it, what organizations affiliated with the author say about it, and the unpublished impressions of folks who might or might not have read it. That kind of article doesn't inspire a lot of trust in readers, so until the independent reviews show up, we delete these kinds of articles.

You mention that you've seen good reviews—where did you find them? If we can cite those, that likely means we can keep the article.

You might also be interested in the formal descriptions of notability and reliable sources. There are additional guidelines for what makes books notable (and what makes pornstars notable, if you're curious). And WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions might be worth a look as well. Feel free to ping me or Tokyogirl79 if you have questions; there is a method to this madness, but sometimes I think we do a pretty good job of hiding it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, the reviews I refer to are the sort of vote-tallies and independent write-ups one finds on Amazon, IMDB, fantasy blogs, Wordpress pages, etc. Not anything we can use. The mainstream press has no time for niche genres; they highlight one Harry Potter or Game of Thrones per decade, and that's the extent of their interest. (Continuing the pornstar ramble, the industry has basically learned how to game Wikipedia's PORNBIO guidelines ("multiple awards to everybody!") for endless free smut advertizing, and the encyclopedia is reacting with the alacrity of a tortoise.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would work? -- The author, novelist Lars Walker, appears deserving of a Wikipedia article in his own right (and he would then confer greater notability to topics he discusses).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created Lars Walker; notable author with half-dozen novels and a column at a notable periodical. His attention should be enough to keep this particular article alive.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Раціональне анархіст: Nice work on finding the review! It's in a blog, which would usually disqualify it, but since he has reviewed several other books and is an author himself you could argue the expert exemption in WP:USERGENERATED. So that's one. Any other reviews that you can find? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy creating the Lars Walker page, so I haven't had time. But I would gamble he is not the only other accomplished author out there who has a) reviewed Bones, and b) does not yet have his own Wikipedia page. (If pornstars can get articles by giving each other BS awards, then certainly writers ought to qualify under the same principle when critiquing the works of their contemporaries.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see anything on the article about Mr Walker that goes for notability either: both sources are on sites that profit financially from Mr Walker's writing. Not every Baen author meets notability criteria, as I've learned (case in point). Could there be more coverage of Mr Walker somewhere, enough to sustain an article? Sure. Is there? No idea. And if we can't show notability for Mr Walker himself, then his thoughts on AToB don't really do very much to support its notability either. DS (talk) 21:56, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Time Blockbuster/Blockbuster (Bollywood Hindi Films)[edit]

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

Someone somewhere, mostly a non-notable writer who has access to e-publication called a film "blockbuster". And then someone over here thought of Googling "blockbuster+bollywood" and pasted the results with all efforts in chronology on wikipedia. So lets begin the discussion on how its not worthy of staying here for being a trivial classification with vague definition. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good sourced article already exists at List of highest-grossing Bollywood films. Article not needed and completely WP:OR based on other OR. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 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. Wifione ^Message 19:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V.A.S. (Musician)[edit]

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

Advertisement, reliant on self-published sources, notability not sufficiently established. —Swpb^talk 14:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of any real notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Several source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify the subject for an article per WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 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. There are few valid reasons for deletion presented. Most of the issues raised are things that could be solved by editing. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IA-32[edit]

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

Article mostly duplicates x86 and i fail to see any difference between the subjects of these two articles. ï¿½ (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the problem with duplication of content? We don't have to pay for it. We're not short of bytes to store it.

x86 is an article of massive scope. IA-32 is one tiny slice of this. A notable slice. If there's overlap, we just duplicate. That isn't a problem.

Even if the entire IA-32 article was duplicated wholesale into x86 (which per UNDUE I doubt is for the best anyway) there would still be a justifiable case for a stand-alone IA-32 article that described the business of IA-32 and avoided excess baggage. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the following reasons:

Nominator's statement alleging WP:CFORK is blatantly false: The subject is clearly not the same. In addition, how can a 3.8 KB article "mostly duplicate" a 79.7 KB (20x larger) article? The nominator is simply making the same mistake explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § x86 versus IA-32.
Nominator has filed this nomination only one 1.5 hours after putting a merger tag on the article, which was removed by User:Dsimic because a merger discussion was not correctly started. This nomination is clearly a retaliatory action.
This article has established its notability. It has the merit to be an individual article.
According to WP:SIZERULE, x86 article needs to be split. This article is an excellent target for receiving specialized contents.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, I've reverted the discussionless merger tag while pointing to Talk:IA-32 § Get rid of it section for an insight into previous discussion – there's simply little to no point in tagging articles that way, without investing some time first into describing the merger proposal. As already described above by Andy Dingley and Codename Lisa, IA-32 is a very notable subset of the x86 architecture, and by no means IA-32 article should be deleted – it might only be expanded further, and x86 article (due to its size) is a good candidate for moving some content over. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of silly really... x86 is not in any way formally defined, or even official (although I have nothing against using it), so you cannot really reason about subsets here. IA-32 appeared in the mid 1990s, aiming at the P6-compatible designs of the time, while x86 may refer to the 80286 of 1982, or the 8086 of 1978, so it would actually be closer to the truth to say that IA-32 is a superset of x86, instead of the other way round (as x86 is not x86-64).

"x86" was coined in the mid 1980s and adopted by programmers as a (slighly humorous) umbrella term for the 8086/88 and 80286 used in the IBM PC compatibles of the day and the new 80386 (originally) employed by Compaq PCs. Later on, this would naturally include 80486, Pentium, P6, etc. (although not always the 80186/88). During the late 1990s or 2000s, "x86" started to catch on in larger circles and became almost a household name.

Although Intel often stressed the (backward) compatibility between their processor designs, they had no single formal terminology at the time. Several names and terminologies was used in papers and manuals (8086-family, iAPX 286, 80386-architecture, i486-architecture, etc.), so i386 was a short and convenient term for assembly and compiler directives and similar.

Many years later, Intel management came up with another name, IA-32, for the updated P6-instruction set (implemented in Pentium Pro and onwards). This was most likely an attempt by Intel's marketing to help their IA-64-architecture (Itanium) to survive, trying to hide the incompatibiliy for the general public by a confusingly similar name (unfortunately for Intel, writers of compilers, device drivers, and the like, had to know the real deal).

I'm 50 years old electronics engineer and compiler writer so I recall most of this first hand. 83.253.224.65 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your whole explanation makes sense, thank you for correcting my wrong description. Using this as a reference, I've already corrected the IA-32 article. Any chances, please, for a few more references, so we can update/correct the article(s) further? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic: Sorry pal, but I am afraid that is wrong. The article by Ronald W. Green only applies to Intel compilers and libraries and is there to support the "metonymy" part. (Hence the mistake of our allegedly 50 years old compiler writer.) Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual clearly states that "The Intel386 processor was the first 32-bit processor in the IA-32 architecture family. It introduced 32-bit registers for use both to hold operands and for addressing." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, accuracy of the article content is all that matters. That reference clearly trumps the one I've used. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nom. is wrong flat. Smells like a WP:POINTy revenge. Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Gaming the system. 83.253.224.65 is saying something else; that we've been wrong since 25 September 2001; 22 years ago (2001-09-25). Let's say he is right. The solution wouldn't be a simple '''delete'''; it would be '''retribution and make amends'''. And that'd be one hell of an amendment. That's what Talk pages are for. Acting like a total WP:DICK (like this AfD is doing and like edit number 324609218) only creates resistance. Fleet Command (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted and merged into article x86. Necessary corrections should also be made to X86.

Reason:

1. x86 is not an architecture name. It is only used to refer processors and associated instruction set. IA-32 is the official architecture name to address this associated instruction set. There are no relations of overlap, intersection, inclusion and the like between them both.

2. Similar with x86, x86-64 is not an architecture name too. AMD64 is the official name to address this 64-bit extended instruction set, because its design mostly based on the existing IA-32 architecture, so Intel also refer their 64-bit extension compatible implementations as Intel64 processors. There is no relation of inclusion between x86-64 and x86, or exactly, AMD64 or Intel64 is not superset of IA-32.

3. Besides the facts above, this article fails to detail the IA-32 architecture, following the belief of article X86, confuse and mislead readers about what IA-32 really is. So I recommend this article deleted, merged into X86 with necessary adaptions. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It seems conspiracy theories haven't gone out of style after all. Even if you could show a source as asked in talk page, none of these are reasons for deletion: Wikipedia can have article on stuff that aren't "architecture". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to the WORD, PHRASE, TERM and so on you use! This main article is too brief to detail the IA-32 architecture, even though I go against my grain to accept that x86 is an architecture name, I would have millions reasons to suggest this article to be removed. Is that enough? Codename Lisa, if you continue talk about something meaningless, I won't make any reply to you! Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Every time I say "source", you evade by making a person attack like this. Regardless, you do need a source. As for your one million reasons, we definitely like to read those that are compliant with Wikipedia deletion policies. The rest, I am afraid, are not even worth mentioning. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't mean to hurt anybody. Frankly, I don't have a source to be easily referred, but I still stick to my belief. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs should always be respected, but Wikipedia works by summing up reliable sources. That's nothing personal, only the way the thing works. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But What is the reliable sources saying x86 is an architecture name? Personal? Oh no, what such a stupid word! I've no passion to greet any guy here. Password Saeba Ryo (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't take it like that, it's nothing personal. Here are a few references you've asked for:

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/54979/x86
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff561502%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
http://people.hsc.edu/faculty-staff/robbk/Coms480/Lectures/Spring%202009/Lecture%2015%20-%20The%20x86%20Architecture.pdf
http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/software_hardware_tech_x86_virt.pdf
http://cs.lmu.edu/~ray/notes/x86overview/

Makes more sense? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 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 redirect (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous (song)[edit]

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

A WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS due to lack of third-party coverage outside of album reviews. Should be deleted or redirected to its album MaranoFan (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ Not really sure how an article about a standalone song could be a CFORK of anything. That said: the article does meet WP:NSONGS (1) by charting on significant charts in the US and Canada. However, that seems to be the extent of its notability; I can't really find any coverage of it. From the previous AfD, we have 1 and 2, and a broken link. But that's it. As big as Taylor Swift is, the song should have more coverage, and maybe it does. But I'm not seeing it. If someone else can find some sources to help push it over GNG I'll swing to a keep; failing that, it's borderline. Meeting NSONGS helps it, but that can't be the only reason to keep. Deadbeef 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). The sources just aren't there but it might make a plausible redirect. Deadbeef 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe anything has changed from last year's attempt to delete this article. The song charted and has enough coverage to pass NSONGS. -- Calidum 17:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: can you point out what coverage you're seeing? I'd think that it should be notable enough to pass but I'm not seeing the coverage in WP:RS's that I was expecting. Deadbeef 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are album reviews, and the article is still a stub. The chart info is already in Swift's discography. Also, just the fact that"nothing has changed" since the last time is not a valid keep argument, but highlights that the stub has in fact not grown since the last DN.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with / redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). Standalone article is unnecessary, and the song appears to fail the GNG by lacking significant coverage outside of its parent album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nominator, MaranoFan, closed this discussion and chose to redirect the article to Red (Taylor Swift album) before the AfD ran a full seven days, when there has clearly not been enough discussion and there was not unanimous support for the decision. This is a clear violation of WP:NACD and I have thus reverted the early closure. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:10, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Sen[edit]

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

Re-nominating. An issue of WP:TOOSOON. Seems like he could be going somewhere, but the only nomination at the moment that could be noteworthy (and I'm not sure Mirch Music Awards qualify) would be for Awara but the imdb page only lists Jeet Ganguly for the music (so I don't know whether he was listed for the award or not). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No claim of notability. No reliability supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough in-depth independent coverage to assert notability. The ToI is a reliable source but the mention is too fleeting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged this WP:SPA autobiography as a notability query soon after it was first created and put a Prod notice on it. I deleted the Prod after the short Times of India piece was added as a reference, but said on the Talk page that I was minded to take it to AfD. Almost two years later, the position hasn't improved: that brief piece from Times of India is sufficient to confirm that the subject is working in the film industry, but is not I think sufficient to demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability, nor can I see anything that does. AllyD (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 keep. Wifione ^Message 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pickens[edit]

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

The article claims he was a D&D game designer, but in the body it lists manuals and guides he contributed to and edited. That is hardly enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an early figure in the creation of Dungeons and Dragons, which kicked off the entire RPG hobby, Pickens would meet WP:AUTHOR criterea 1-3. Artw (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid deletion rationale. If there is a question of notability, a few independent reliable sources have been added within the past month, and I suspect there is more out there which would make sure it meets the WP:GNG. If the majority disagrees with me, please send to Draft space rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid keep rationale. TSR, maker of D&D, published Dragon, hence not independent. Based on the quotations, two of the others show less than monumental accomplishments/suggestions that don't satisfy AUTHOR. I have no idea what the first is supposed to support, but the title shows that he isn't the main subject, same as the other two. It's all slim Pickens. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source, the Milwaukee Sentinel article from 1993 which I added, is not entirely about Jon Pickens, but it does support the assertion that he was a significant early figure in the history of D&D; it says he "has worked on most of the company's historical designs". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know what refs might have been added in recent edits, but as I see it today, it has multiple sources not from TSR or Wizards of the Coast; that meets WP:GNG. A ref does not need to be "entirely about" someone to be a RS. Side note, this AfD should probably be added to the Games AfD page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games - Sangrolu (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources aren't great, but appear to meet WP:N Hobit (talk) 10:50, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Light Controversy[edit]

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

Entirely un-notable topic, per WP:N. The only basis for its inclusion in this resource seems to be that this event was covered in a single newspaper at the time of occurrence. What relevance this has to anyone except the individuals immediately involved in the story is a mystery to me. Walkersam (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm more than a little leery of the fact that the only newspaper articles about this appear to be on a blog. It doesn't help that this article is fairly closely paraphrased from said blog, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion on those grounds. However even if this gets declined, this appears to be a very non-notable event. Sometimes disputes between families can become notable but this appears to have been little more than a small, petty squabble between families that never gained more attention than the local papers. This is pretty much the epitome of WP:ONEEVENT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 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, the main argument being WP:TOOSOON

Ipdb[edit]

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

A dismally sourced article on an under-the-radar site. A Google search fails to turn up any significant coverage of this site, which appears to fall short of WP:WEB and WP:CORP requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 22:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:TOOSOON. The site only launched in November. It's still way too early to have garnered significant coverage, and still much smaller by number of podcasts than major index sites like iTunes and Stitcher Radio. Delete for now with no prejudice against creating again if it develops into well-covered site. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:00, 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 as a copy of another page the editor created. However even if it wasn't, I'd still have closed this early as a WP:NOT issue. The editor has created several pages along these lines (some of which were previously speedied as promotion), so I'm going to issue them a warning about creating these pages. If anyone particularly wants a copy of the info I'll restore a copy for them to their userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native American women's rights[edit]

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

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

Two articles — actually the exact same article doubleposted at two different titles for no immediately apparent reason — which is written as an essay, serving to advance a thesis, rather than an encyclopedia article. (The same user also created Disney's Pocahontas from a Women Studies Perspective, which is suffering from the exact same problem but has already been separately listed for prod.) It would almost certainly be possible to write and source a real article about the history of women's rights in Native American and First Nations cultures, but this as written isn't that article — and neither of these would be that article's title, either. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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. Wifione ^Message 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Hero Academia[edit]

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

Also known as Boku no Hiro Academia. Recent series from Shonen Jump. Only six months old which makes it difficult to establish notability due to a lack of critical discussion or impact outside of fan opinions. Being in Jump does not itself give notability. While we have sales data for the first (and so far only) collected volume), this alone is not enough to prove notability. I believe that future notability is likely, but at this moment it's yet to be established by the standard we impose on other articles. Therefore I would suggest userfication so the article can be developed until it becomes more notable.

I have done a basic search for the series but unsurprisingly most results are for illegal hosting of the series or fan comments. ANN didn't turn up any obvious info beside it launching and the sales chart for the period it was released. I have already asked the original poster and the user who added some information to the article if they had any further info to add and they both said no - neither objected to the idea of an AFD. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so what else would you need to make it notable? -A random editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, some sort of third-party coverage. Like an actual review or something. Doesn't even have to be in English. 12.249.243.118 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an interview about it. Can someone who knows Japanese see if it is? Also, is this a review?--Cattus ^talk 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is an interview with Horikoshi's editor. The second is a review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC6A:D800:DC34:101D:1605:EDC0 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Cattus ^talk 12:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the article is sufficiently notable now. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arguably, the mere fact it charted at all should be enough to establish notability. Not every manga ever gets to do that. For example, manga such as YuruYuri and Sakura Trick have articles despite never charting, although that's because they have anime adaptation. Plus it already has a review, so it should be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "charting at all" is that it then becomes very easy to say something is notable when it only just creeps onto a chart with 500 copies. Clearly this isn't remotely like that but it could be taken by some as an excuse to use the same argument for much more obscure works. Your second point pretty much answers itself. As the review is hosted by a print publisher I agree we probably have enough when combined with the chart figure. The work itself seems like it's going to be around for a while, but it's unusual for Jump series to become notable in 6 months. I'd also argue that the page has improved from the exposure. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:30, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So @SephyTheThird:, you're essentially withdrawing this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Notability established.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 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 00:51, 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. - Thanks to Yngvadottir for his major improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Leyrer[edit]

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

Delete: -- NACTOR Quis separabit? 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any coverage. NickCT (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. There are numerous sources online in German, most of them referring to her as "the grande dame of Vienna cabaret". She has had a long career in both theatre and cabaret and has received a high honour from the City/State of Vienna, and I found some extended coverage of her to flesh out the article; there are also scads of tabloidish mentions and pictures of her attending events. Her film career, to judge from what I can see (lots of snippet views and DVD sales sites), is dominated by films of her stage work and by campy horror films, so I didn't attempt to fill that out. But I believe the article now demonstrates notability both on general grounds and in terms of the impact of her career. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 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 19:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is rather obvious after Yngvadottir's intervention, but if we need more !votes to make it so, then I'm happy to pile on.—S Marshall T/C 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:13, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage is in socialist publications, which of course are not going to be reliable sources for the purposes of the notability of this group. Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:ORG provides no mention of socialist publications being unreliable sources. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. In this case the secondary source, Committee for a Workers' International, has given plenty of coverage to Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)at http://www.socialistworld.net/ As an international body it is reliable on these matters and as the secretariat of a federation is a secondary source to Socialist Alternative which is the primary source.

At WP:GNG When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. The page Committee for a Workers' International lists all affiliated parties and provides links to stand alone pages for each. Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) follows this precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahvistus (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to give the official website of the party instead of their blog. I have also added their logo, the name of their paper and a link to it. I hope that helps. Vahvistus (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 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 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced that coverage by the Committee for a Workers' International of Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) would be independent enough for the purposes of WP:GNG. That said, I can't actually find an instance of coverage by the Committee for a Workers' International of Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I've searched that site and beyond some coverage of other issues that might have originated with people who are also affiliated with Socialist Alternative, I couldn't find anything. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ - There is coverage here [11] but Stalwart111 is correct in that they refer to CWI Malaysia not socialist alternative. This may be their preferred translation from Malay into English but it is the same organisation as evidenced by the link to the blog. The mainstream press is unlikely to give coverage to a small Trotskyist organisation but this does not make it less notable on its own terms. They are known within the socialist and labour movement of Malaysia [12] and as an organised current of thought will have an influence greater than their size. Vahvistus (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to !vote twice. The CWI owns that news outlet - they are not the same organisation and if there is some suggestion that they are then there is no way we can use that obviously non-independent source to substantiate notability. That it hasn't received coverage in mainstream press absolutely does make it less notable. That's what WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH are all about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CWI Malaysia and Socialist Alternative (Malaysia) are the same organisation and these are translations from the Malaysian name Sosialis Alternatif. I used the form which was used at Committee for a Workers' International. The CWI have their own house style for example The Socialist Party in Ireland is referred to as CWI in Ireland republic. ^[1] The socialist world website of the CWI has a list of articles on Malaysia going back to 2005. ^[2] From 2008 onwards the articles refer to CWI Malaysia but the link provided goes to the blog of Sosialis Alternatif ^[3] While searching for references I found the website of sosialis alternatif which I used in the info box. ^[4] From this website I could see that they publish a newspaper, Solidariti Pekerja. ^[5] It is possible to view the newspapers in pdf form and on page 12 of issue 7 is a mention of CWI Malaysia. Sosialis Alternatif is affiliated to the committee for a workers' international but they are independent of each other as can be seen from other affiliates breaking the link and still existing as organisations for example Scottish Militant Labour or Nava Sama Samaja Party.

I have increased notability by adding Solidariti Pekerja to List of newspapers in Malaysia under the Malaysian language heading with a link to Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I am following the style of the Committee for a Workers' International wiki page in giving each affiliate its own page. I was hoping it could be expanded by editors with more knowledge or Malaysian language skills. Vahvistus (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and articles from affiliate organisations and from the organisation itself do not confer notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. I don't think we have a single one right now. Adding the article to lists of other things here on Wikipedia doesn't "increase notability" unfortunately. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another section with references to increase notability.

I would like to bring these guidelines from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to your attention:

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. Vahvistus (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't bring it to AFD but I agree that it should be here. Without any independent sources, this is a hopeless case; an article that should never have been created about an organisation that simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two independent sources, the Socialist Party of Australia^[6] and the Socialist World site of the Committee for a Workers' International. ^[7] I have noted that Mkativerata does not consider socialist sources to be reliable but I dispute this. I also note St★lwart¹¹¹ view that this is "an article that should never have been created about an organisation that simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion." and would ask you to consider these guidelines from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ... template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Vahvistus (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we call that WP:BEFORE. It would seem Mkativerata did everything required before nominating this. For article creators we have WP:BURDEN - it's not our job to prove something is not notable, it's your job to prove it is. Vague statements like "it's notable among socialists" or "people in other niche groups know about this niche group" are pointless. More sources from the CWI get us no closer and the Socialist Party of Australia aren't a reliable source, let alone an independent one. What we need is coverage from those not connected to the subject - newspapers, magazines, websites, books, academic journals and papers, etc. Just posting more links to articles from connected people is a waste of time. So far the total number of independent reliable sources remains zero. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another source which I again contend is independent notwithstanding its affiliation to the same federation as Socialist Alternative (Malaysia).^[8] It is a newspaper with an editorial board and has been published for a number of years. The statement it supports is not outlandish Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources WP:CONTEXTMATTERS asks that:

Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

It seems to me that a socialist newspaper would be an entirely appropriate source for details about a socialist organisation in another country. If you think that they are secretly all one organisation contrary to their own internal constitutions then that is for you to prove.

I have looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which says "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." If the leader of the party is notable then surely the party itself is notable. Vahvistus (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're clutching at straws now. It's not a "political party" (in which elections has it fielded candidates?), it's a political action group. The Socialist Party of Malaysia is a political party, with which this group is affiliated. Besides, that guideline had no bearing on WP:ORGDEPTH. It's clear that source is about the PSM, not the subject in question, from even the most basic of translations. There's nothing wrong, per se, with "socialist" sources but they still have to give the organisation coverage and they have to be more independent that those run by the same group or their close (local) affiliates. In the United States, there would be plenty of coverage for local Republican Party branches or Tea Party collectives in right-wing blogs and local party magazines. But that doesn't make those branches notable unless they have done something to receive broader coverage. Anyway, I'm done. We can leave it to others to judge whether those sources are sufficient. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable communist-front splinter sect; website consists of a few blogs posts back in August, then "dead-air" since (my guess: school is back in session).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.socialistworld.net/view/23
^ http://www.socialistworld.net/view/100
^ http://asocialistmalaysia.blogspot.co.uk/
^ http://sosialisalternatif.wordpress.com/
^ http://sosialisalternatif.wordpress.com/solidariti-pekerja-2/
^ http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/611
^ http://www.socialistworld.net/view/100
^ http://offensiv.socialisterna.org/sv/884/cwi/5135/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, ad for (yet to be) self-published book. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Mutineers[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable yet to be published book (according to the website the author is considering an IndieGoGo campaign to raise money for it). This doesn't meet the minimum standards of WP:NBOOK. The user name of the creator suggests a possible COI but the content it not overtly promotional enough to qualify for a speedy deletion. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 00:44, 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Lopez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete.: This page voted "keep" a decade ago, but today, Sky is no longer a notable pornstar. She fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:Pornbio. She has no major award wins, no Hall of fame inductions, no unique contributions to pornography, and no mainstream popularity. Redban (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wasn't really notable in 2005 either. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award nomination. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources to pass GNG. All coverage comes from a sex tape story involving a mainstream actor. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, subject was nominated for a AVN in 2005.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That award was for "Best All-Girl Sex Scene," however. The WP:Pornbio (1) says, "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Redban (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, nominations are now excluded as well. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you possibly claim in good faith that a single nomination for a scene award satisfies PORNBIO? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vote that must have minimal worth in this Afd. Redban (talk) 21:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis, soundly based in the applicable guidelines. Per WP:KEEP, "questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination", and boilerplate votes with no real policy/guideline basis should be discounted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require better sources then this. FWIW the award is scene related so doesn't count and subtropicalman always votes keep in porn discussions and never offers a policy based reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jaymes[edit]

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

This pornstar fails WP:Pornbio. She has no major award wins, no mainstream popularity, no unique contributions to porn Redban (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those unexplained votes have minimal worth. Please explain how she passes WP:PORNSTAR without any award, without any Hall of Fame, without starring in blockbluster, without multiple mainstream appearances. Redban (talk) 21:07, 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 00:42, 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.

[1] ttp://www.socialistworld.net/view/23

[2] ttp://www.socialistworld.net/view/100

[3] ttp://asocialistmalaysia.blogspot.co.uk/

[4] ttp://sosialisalternatif.wordpress.com/

[5] ttp://sosialisalternatif.wordpress.com/solidariti-pekerja-2/

[6] ttp://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/611

[7] ttp://www.socialistworld.net/view/100

[8] ttp://offensiv.socialisterna.org/sv/884/cwi/5135/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]