Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 December	3 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina García Rodero[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP and does not satisfy WP:N at all regardless GSMR (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ARTIST. I've added a source that calls her the "most celebrated documentary photographer in contemporary Spain." She also has articles in six other language Wikipedias, and ca:Cristina García Rodero and es:Cristina García Rodero have additional references that could be used to expand the article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she meets WP:GNG. My Spanish isn't that great but I think this article from El Mundo discusses her career and mentions that she was the first Spanish (female?) photographer admitted as a full member to Magnum Photos.[1] Another from El Pais states she took (official?) photos of the Spanish royals and also links to other articles about her.[2] Fuebaey (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample notability is demonstrated. She has had 4 books of her work published by established publishers; she has received 3 noteworthy awards (though one is in need of a reference); her work has been exhibited in noteworthy galleries; and she is a full member of Magnum Photos. -Lopifalko (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps a SNOW Keep at this point. She has won respected awards, a Google search shows plenty of WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
. . . and does not satisfy WP:N at all regardless, pronounces GSMR. Regardless of what, GSMR? Her list of publications, perhaps? I've already augmented the list within the article. Care for some exhibitions? Tip for finding these: just look her up at Worldcat, and note the books, brochures and leaflets which, disinterested librarians have declared, accompanied this or that exhibition (place(s) and dates usually specified). Regardless of her membership of Magnum? ¶ Keep, duh. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Meets WP:Artist. Nuff said.Canyouhearmenow 14:32, 8 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. (I used to work in radio and can confirm that this is popular software, but also can confirm in final due diligence that it had no meaningful hits in ProQuest and LexisNexis.) czar ⨹ 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinitron[edit]

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

Almost certainly does not meet notability for software Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community radio radio ain't chopped liver. It's a vital part of their very infrastructure. kencf0618 (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinitron is not about software! Spinitron is an organization providing a critical online utility to community and non-commercial radio stations, broadcasters, agents, recording labels and yes, music listeners, enthusiasts and fans.Robmacclanahan (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC) — Robmacclanahan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Whether the article is on the software, the service, or the company, the issue is one of notability, WP:N. Right now, the only significant, possibly independent coverage is the backboneradio.com review. The COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD legal filing is not useful for establishing notability. Articles typically need significant coverage in more than one independent source. This threshold is not currently met for spintron.Dialectric (talk) 01:22, 29 November 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 23:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd write this off as adspam if the article creator wasn't a longstanding editor with thousands of good edits. Whether this service is a "vital part" of the "very infrastructure" of community radio doesn't matter a hoot, though: it's whether the subject demonstrates enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia article. With just a handful of passing mentions on news hits, and zero newspaper hits, the answer is "No." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:03, 3 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Marrese[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 18 November 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 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School board members are not automatically notable and his coverage is just the routine reporting of his school board activities--nothing to show encyclopedic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 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 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. No, school board members don't get automatic passes on WP:POLITICIAN. But this is the guy who ran the school board in Metro Toronto. The district has a quarter-million freaking students--- larger than many cities that get passes for mayors and aldermen--- over 500 schools, an annual budget of $3 billion, and it's the 4th largest school district in the hemisphere. We're not talking your small town school committee here. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: repugnant individual based on what I read, but one who acquired, largely through his notoriety, a degree of notability. Quis separabit? 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Public figure who appears to meet our GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was the chair of what is now known as the Toronto Catholic District School Board. That article doesn't link to him, and he won't be missed. This article had way too much detail about minor public offices, and way too little about what he was doing, which was advocating for the Catholic schools. The scandal sounds like a routine, small potatoes local politics COI scandal. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on references (out of 25, only 2 are not Toronto Star), this person is shown to be solely of local interest, which is the norm for local offices that do not confer WP:GNG. LaMona (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 04:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chumak[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and an unsuccessful candidate for higher office, neither of which is a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL. Although the article is sourced, nothing here is actually outside of the ordinary level of purely local media coverage that all school trustees always get — meaning that none of it provides any actual reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience. This is basically a leftover from a time (2006) when our notability standards for politicians were a lot looser than they are now, but NPOL has been tightened up considerably over the years and he doesn't pass it as things stand in 2014. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 18 November 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 21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician and his coverage is just the usual local reporting that you'd expect.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 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 23:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mentions outside of local newspapers; minor public office. LaMona (talk) 22:58, 9 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Michaels[edit]

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

GNG, no refs, empty article. EBY (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please I hope you will give me a chance to complete the first draft of the article. Onlydemi (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Onlydemi - In the future, it would be better to write drafts in your sandbox or other non-article space instead of publishing them to the encyclopedia. When you put an article up, it should be complete and meet all Wikipedia article requirements. There are some easy to follow instructions here. EBY (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onlydemi; deletion discussions run for a week, so my advice is to carry on improving the article. You'll need some sources to show that he meets the notability guidelines, so maybe focus on that as much as content. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at the moment. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest the subject meets the general notability guideline or the more specific guideline for creative professionals. However, it looks like the article is a work-in-progress, so if the editor doing that provides some good sources (possible since Michaels' Movie Madness is from the late 80's so sources may be offline), I could be swayed. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 19 November 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 20:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for publishing the page rather than starting it in my sandbox. I am adding references as I get them, you are indeed correct, there isn't much available online due to the time period involved, however there is a significant amount of information that needs to be uploaded to the Commons (I have added some already). Are YouTube videos allowed as clips from Michaels Movie Madness for example? Thanks. Onlydemi (talk) 13:28, 30 November 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 23:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

to EBY. The article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after it was created. That's a little eager to delete what was an in progress article. Onlydemi, Youtube videos are not considered independent articles and Reliable Sources and therefore don't help the article pass the wp:GNG. Also you might consider adding the page to a Wikiproject. I'm going to say soft keep based on the cult nature of the series and the fact it was from the late 80s meaning that the sources should exist (thus passing wp:N) even if we don't actually have them. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon - The trout's fine, I like it with a little lemon. As Dylanfromthenorth pointed out, the nom gave the editor a week to establish GNG. Plenty of time. Or, you know, the editor could stick one of those handy 'new page' tags at the top to let people know what was going on. If you look at what went up originally, it was basically a pointer to the subject's blog.EBY (talk) 16:39, 8 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 FIDO Alliance. Rounded to redirect slakr^\ talk / 09:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nok Nok Labs[edit]

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

SPA-written promo that uses two RS that quote the founder (Phil Dunkelberger) and mention he has a startup (this company) but both articles are about FIDO Alliance and NOT this company. It is a year-old startup with no notability. EBY (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any coverage mentioning this recent start-up relates more to the FIDO Alliance and routine announcements. The firm may become notable in future but at present this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm equally comfortable with User:MelanieN's alternative suggestion below of a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Nok Nok Labs is a founding member and driver of the FIDO Alliance and consequently much of the coverage regarding Nok Nok Labs will involve the FIDO Alliance. I modified a press release quote to be from a news source (Pitchbook). Note that news coverage will probably include FIDO Alliance information as that is integral to the ecosystem in which Nok Nok operates. --Cryptodd (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I object to deleting the Nok Nok Labs article as I believe the page now conforms with Wikipedia guidelines and has been edited to address the above stated concerns. --Cryptodd (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC) (NOTE: User:Cryptodd is the author of the article.)[reply]

Redirect to FIDO Alliance, where it is already mentioned. This will preserve the article history, in case the company becomes notable enough in the future for the redirect to be expanded into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 22 November 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 20:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To restate my objections to deleting this article, the article has been updated to remove any references to press releases and I have added additional citations to substantiate the article. One issue raised was that the citations referenced the FIDO Alliance more than Nok Nok Labs. Nok Nok Labs is a founding member of the FIDO Alliance (which has 100+ members at this point) and has a business model that leverages the FIDO Alliance ecosystem, so Nok Nok Labs references will probably include FIDO Alliance references. I believe the revised Nok Nok Labs article as it stands now is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. --Cryptodd (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing after recent revisions: I still don't find this company to meet the WP:CORP requirements for a standalone article. The references cited are to things like minor trade journals; I don't find anything from what I would consider a significant Independent Reliable Source. Same with the sources turned up on a search.[3] When we start to see significant coverage from major newspapers, then we can talk about restoring the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added in two additional citations from reputable, major trade publications (Network World and SC Magazine). The Google search on "Nok Nok Labs" provided above supports inclusion of the Nok Nok Labs article with an additional "reputable publication" - an American Banker article. The new citations added to the Nok Nok Labs article are security trade publications, however they are significant industry trade publications read by most enterprise IT security practitioners. If the bar is that one has to wait for coverage from major newspapers (publications that are in decline and reducing newsroom staff) before adding an article to Wikipedia, we had better start deleting a bunch of entries, particularly for startup companies that might eventually go on to do great things. I think the revised Nok Nok Labs article meets the bar with adequate references from significant secondary publications. These citations are not major newspaper references because Nok Nok Labs authentication business is business IT security product, not a consumer product that would frequently make consumer newspaper headlines. --Cryptodd (talk) 20:14, 26 November 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 23:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not persuaded. Those two new citations? One's a blogpost and the other is about this Dunkelberger chap or about a product, not about the company itself. The answer to there being no good references because the company's business is secret isn't "So the subject doesn't have to meet the GNG." It's "So the subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article." Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: I disagree with the previous comments - the Network World article focuses on the company and the CEO. The headline says it: "PGP Corp. co-founder's startup targets cloud authentication: Can Phil Dunkelberger's new venture, Nok Nok Labs, really change authentication for the better?" The SCMagazine UK citation is a blog, but a regular editorial columnist blog. And these are only two of eight citations. I think this passes the Wikipedia article bar, and if the bar is higher, then we probably need to delete a number of other articles. --Cryptodd (talk) 21:36, 3 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredian Holdings Group Inc.[edit]

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

SPA-written (and published) company article on a privately-held company, article is almost completely from their own website with a single reliable source ref. (the rest blogs, their own PR releases (on trade shows, reorganizations, and patents) quoted from sources, and their own website). This is the only RS: ^[1]. EBY (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.plasticstoday.com/articles/green-matter-invention-driven-innovation-beats-serendipity-says-pha-expert

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 19 November 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 20:43, 25 November 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 23:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~would~~ say Keep. ~~if a little bit of work was done~~ There is enough to improve the article and cites. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That work hasn't been done, so I say Delete. Since when do we keep articles without proper references just because somewhere some good references "might" exist? Either they're demonstrated or they're not. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There was also an article in the China Daily, local newspapers (the farmers), local business sites, and a couple of trade industry sites. The article could be slimmed down and made more encyclopedic, but there is enough there. Not top quality but good enough. IMO having the first food-safe biodegradable plastic is significant. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:53, 4 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Brackett's solar system fictional world[edit]

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

I marked this and related pages (Venus in the fiction of Leigh Brackett, etc.) as candidates for deletion and it was proposed that they be merged instead. However, I think merging is an unsatisfactory compromise. First, as un-sourced articles describing a subject in an in-universe style, merging does not address the main issues of notability and verifiability. Second, as these pages are primarily the work of one user, the proposed merge is unlikely to be addressed any time soon, so I think it's worth resolving the core issues.

I understand editors sometimes errs on the side of caution with these in-universe articles, but I wanted to raise the discussion one more time. In short, I think these pages fail the notability test, and as in-universe explanations, can only be "verified" by the fiction they come from. Geethree (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Leigh Brackett is considered to be a major figure amongst women sf writers, becoming a Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductee in 2014. As such her work passes any notability test. The question regarding this and associated articles concerns the lack of sufficient references and citations. I have added several today and believe that a small amount of work will further enhance the articles to ensure they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing Leigh Brackett's notability, but the notability of these specific articles—which do not discuss her work but fictional elements within her work, lowering their notability, see WP:BKD. IMO this basically falls under the problems implied by WP:FANCRUFT. Are there multiple independent sources that discuss these elements in substance? (One of the sources just added to the page references the very articles we're discussing here, which edges pretty close to WP:CIRCULAR, and I do not think the other sources can be said to discuss this topic in substance.)

That said, it's very possible I'm wrong here. However, I don't think we can take for granted that these pages inherit Brackett's notability.Geethree (talk)

I'm not sure how an argument can be run that implies that the fiction of a person who is notable for writing fiction is not itself notable. If the fiction isn't notable then the person isn't either. And also, if the person is notable then the fiction is as well. The point about this encyclopedia entry is that it brings together all the various streams of Brackett's fiction, thereby enhancing her notability rather than reducing it. I look on this piece as being similar to the Known Space article about Larry Niven's fictional universe. Does that diminish Niven's notability by diluting the content? I don't think so. I suspect that much more work has been done on Niven's piece than Brackett's which is why I believe it needs to be added to the Wikipedia Science Fiction Project as a page in need of work.

I am aware that some of the articles used as references also mention this Wikipedia article but I attempted to only reference those sections which were new and not self-referential.

As stated earlier, Brackett was a Science Fiction Hall of Fame inductee in 2014. And the only way to be inducted is to be elected by experts and practitioners in the field. So I believe any possibility of WP:FANCRUFT is catered for. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe that Larry Niven article as having many of the same problems, including over-described fictional elements and a lack of reputable, secondary sources. However, I agree that Leigh Brackett herself is a significant writer and that does suggest some inherent notability to aspects of her work, so I don't want to discount that perspective completely. Even though I still believe the Leigh Brackett Solar System articles should be deleted (or at least merged and substantially condensed), I would appreciate the input of other editors. Geethree (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the question of notability for in-fiction works, the long and short of it is that you have to look at whether or not the topic itself (in this case the fictional world) has received coverage in reliable sources. You'd need more than just literature reviews of her work, which means that you'd have to show articles that discuss the world and its lore as a whole. You can see this evidenced in this article about Discworld. Mostly this is because at some point we'd need RS to back up the claims in the article, because otherwise it'd just be original research, which is the biggest issue I see with the article as a whole. We can have pages on fictional universes if the work is widely reviewed and there are a lot of books in the series, but mostly people try to avoid doing that because of how easy it is for the entire page to become one large piece of original research. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 20 November 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 19:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate and sum up my argument, I do not think Leigh Brackett is so notable an author that articles describing tertiary aspects of her work are inherently notable. So far, this seems to be the key argument in favor of keeping. We are several degrees removed from the author at this point: the author, works by the author, fictional elements within those works. The notability of such articles is clearly called into question per WP:BKD. Obviously, at a certain point, derivative articles are no longer notable even for very notable authors.

There is an apparent lack of multiple, reputable sources that discuss this subject specifically—a key requirement for establishing notability. While it's possible such sources exist, at some point we have to make a decision as to whether it is likely such sources exist. Given the current state of the articles (in-universe summaries), the potential future state of the articles (at best, substantially reduced and very likely merged), the lack of reputable sources, and the issues implied by derivative articles, I think these articles ought to be deleted. Geethree (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Leigh Brackett is a notable author, as evidenced by her induction into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame this year. By my count (possibly out by one or two) there are only 79 such inductees. She was inducted based on her lifetime body of work, which to me implies that her whole written output was important in determining her eligibility for the recognition. That indicates that her sf and fantasy fiction (novels, stories and screenplays) is notable as it and only it comprises her notability. An article about a common feature of her work would therefore appear to be only one degree removed from the author herself. I agree that the article needs a lot of editorial work to ensure that proper and reliable sources are cited and that the article does not constitute original research, but I believe that is still a long way from an automatic delete. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa, time out here. So Brackett's notable. No one's disputing that. So many of her works are notable. No one's disputing that either. So when did WP:NOTINHERITED get suspended? This article is a giant, fat WP:OR/WP:SYNTH violation, because it hasn't demonstrated that it, by itself, has been discussed as a subject in multiple reliable sources. Just because Brackett was a notable author doesn't mean that any article with her name in the subject line gets a free pass, and that seems to be what Perry Middlemiss is arguing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I was attempting to answer the point that this article is "several degrees" removed from the author herself, which I believe is incorrect. That said, I'm coming more to the view that this article should be changed to a straight list of the elements of the author's works rather than a piece specifying the inter-connectedness of it all. So rather than a straight delete, an edit and a renaming to bring it into line with Wikipedia expectations. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that "several degrees removed" is perhaps not the best way to understand the issues of these pages. That said, to me these recent comments are still an argument in favor of deleting these pages. If a different, more appropriate page is created, or a new section is created on the Leigh Brackett page to describe her solar system, or what have you, then that would be a separate conversation altogether. In addition, "merge, edit, and rename" is 1) not very far from deleting these pages and 2) still does not address the core problem of a lack of sources indicating notability.

I don't want to dog this conversation as I feel like I've explained my position well enough (perhaps too much :)) so I will defer to whatever consensus is reached past this point. Geethree (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wp:TNT at the very least, with all the pages ending up on the main universe page (which could be saved with sufficient extra sources). But this feels like fancruft and no notability of her worlds as distinct from her has been established. Under wp:NOTINHERIT Delete would appear to be the only possible choice. Neonchameleon (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the consensus will be for Delete, and in its present form the page certainly fails to meet the requirements for WP:NOR in Wikipedia. And I think that is the main issue here, not the issue of notability which was the original reason cited for possible deletion. Also I have a lot of trouble buying an argument that an author can be notable but her works are not. That's like saying that a sportsperson is notable but his or her performances are not.

I've taken a copy of the text and if the page is deleted I'll attempt to change it into more of a list of items with references and move it away from its current implication of original research. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim isn't that Leigh Bracket is notable but her works aren't. Of course some of her works qualify as notable under wp:NBOOK. But not everything she does is notable. wp:NOTINHERIT. Further there's a difference between her works being notable (some are, some aren't) and in-fiction aspects of her work being notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:23, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreevallabhan[edit]

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

No proof that notability as a name or a distinct name of the Hindu god. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Agreed, not a distinct name. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 18 November 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 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 2 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 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Boyd[edit]

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

This is a biography of a living person having no references at all. The two possible claims for notability are that he is a professor at Loyola, and he is a musician. As an academic, I can find no indication that he meets WP:ACADEMIC. The external link provided to the his profile at Loyola is dead. As best as I can determine, he is no longer there, and is now teaching at a community college. As a musician, he has worked with notable musicians, but notability is not inherited, and I can find no evidence that WP:MUSICIAN is met. The link to his official site is also dead. Whpq (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence found on notability--Mevagiss (talk) 20:46, 18 November 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, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has released a CD and plays various dates, but not finding any reviews or notable coverage. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:06, 9 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. Secret ^account 03:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

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

very little content and the only YYYY in Antigua and Barbuda article. Frietjes (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not part of an established series. Happy for it be re-created if someone is going to spend the time to create and expand all the other year articles too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. O. Y. Keita[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable academic. He has modest, non-negligible, cites on Google scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and (since the only nontrivial source about him is a speaker bio from a conference) no evidence of passing WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Resumé-type article about a non-notable academic. Citations at Google Scholar fall way short of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Pretty much no general coverage at all, so fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 9 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Zugarramurdi[edit]

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

This isn;t my usual area, but I can't see what would make for notability here. But I can see that it's written in a very promotional tone. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written taking examples of other artist alike pages in wikipedia. The article is merely informative with no intention to promote but inform. Lagasta ( talk ) 09:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are not independent reliable evidence of notability, nor are multiple searches (Allmusic, Highbeam, Questia, Google) turning up anything better. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 3 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. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hermina Dunz[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY criteria, although I know people have very different ideas when it comes to the notability of longevity. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 2 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. Looks like this article is solidly in the grey area.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Mussatto[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a mayor. The city is large enough that he might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but at 48K it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor — and furthermore, this article as written is edging heavily into résumé style (bullet-point list of committee positions), which is never acceptable in any article regardless of whether it passes our notability rules or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage and simply being the mayor of a town of 48K is not enough to grant automatic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it.ShulMaven (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) That it's an anon IP who does Wikignome work at AfD, and you gotta admit that 50 more AfD regulars'd be none too many. As long as the IP isn't trolling and makes policy-based arguments instead of "It's useful" or "Does no harm" crap, where's the fuss? Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:59, 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 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, I keep running into this string of AFDs on small-city mayors. ( I tend to skim over the AFDs on musicians and new software) And I think, right, can't be notable. I almost wrote delete after reading argument made by Nom and glancing at the page. But then I thought, no, I really ought to at least run a quick google. so I did, and again realized not only how much coverage small city mayors actually get, but how significant it is to be elected to run a city of 50,000 or so people. There's actually quite a lot of coverage of Mussatto, and it goes far beyond passing references. I mean, there are real issues in a city this size; his opinions and the impact his decisions have get real coverage. May take a swing sourcing this article later. But even a short review of the stuff that comes to the top of any search shows that the material to build a good article is out there.ShulMaven (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little sourcing. Turns out the city pop. is growing rapidly (now over 50,000) as an old shipbuilding district becomes a hot area for condo development (Vancouver growing north, I presume) with Mussatto backing the developers and a fair amount of ensuing political contention. Latest election hotly contested. Didn't have time to listen to CBC interview with him on development (added it to article - media section) , or to read the many articles in the Vancouver Sun and more local papers on the fight over development, but there is notability and news coverage. Hot issues political battles are fought by mayors in towns you and I never heard of.ShulMaven (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a quality-of-the-article issue here — even a politician who cleanly passes WP:NPOL still isn't ever under any circumstances whatsoever entitled to keep an article that's written and formatted as a résumé (and no article is ever allowed to contain a "media" section that contains direct offsite links, either; his own primary website may be listed in the "external links" section and the infobox, and any other EL to any other site at all may be present only as a footnoted reference for body text content.) And it's a long-established principle of Wikipedia that interviews with the subject do not confer notability for our purposes — you need sources in which he's the subject to get him over our inclusion rules, not sources in which he's the speaker. For added bonus, the sourcing here is still almost entirely of the primary variety. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess I missed the part where a population threshold was set down in black-and-white. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't have one. Anyone like to link to it? Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:POLOUTCOMES explains, the established consensus for mayors is that they're only entitled to claim NPOL in cities of "regional prominence" — not everybody draws the "what constitutes regional prominence" line at the same place, with some accepting 50K and others insisting on 100K instead, but there's no consensus to automatically accept mayors of anything below 50K as "automatically notable just because they exist". I said right up front that the article could absolutely be kept if he could be sourced up enough to pass WP:GNG, but that still hasn't been demonstrated at all — and no mayor, not even the mayor of a city in the millions, ever gets to keep an entirely primary sourced résumé on here. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, this minor politician has just enough meaty coverage (CBC, Vancouver Sun) to squeak through. Bearcat disagrees. However, this old industrial town is booming, gentrifying, and people may want to know who he is because there are major development battles going on and Mussatto just got re-elected. I suggest closing to No consensus.ShulMaven (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The only significant source in the article is an article from the Vancouver Sun, a regional paper, about the issues in the election. That's routine coverage, and everything else is either hyper-local coverage or self-referential links. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vancouver Sun is one of the top newspapers of the province of British Columbia and is a reliable source which helps establish Mussato's WP:GNG. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Vancouver Sun coverage is enough to pass GNG. Vrac (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darrell Mussatto is a major local political figure with sufficient press coverage to consider him notable as per WP:POLITICIAN. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:03, 14 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 deleted as advertising. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advissor ram[edit]

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

Not quite clear what the article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete appears to be gibberish. Artw (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G11 - I've tagged it as such since the creator goes by Advisor Ram and obviously the article's nothing but promo crap, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 2 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 - appears to be a hoax, and if not doesn't meet notability. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooranayakanvalasu[edit]

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

Apparent hoax, and was recently tagged as such by an IP. The problem is that the article is not just unreferenced, the only Google results appear to be mirrors of this page. Even if not a hoax, it is clearly not verifiable. Everymorning talk to me 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, there appears to be no such village. At least, not recognized by the Government of India, that way even if not hoax qualifies for deletion per WP:GEOLAND. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax unless someone proves it exists when keep. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:16, 8 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 03:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilves Framework[edit]

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

No reliable sources or indication of notability for this software. PROD removed without comment. —Swpb^talk 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added entry to the CMS software list for an OS web framework I have been developing which required article as well. The inclusion criteria related to this kind of software entries is a bit vague but there is certainly question about notability. For professional software developers new / emerging frameworks are of great interest and hence I saw inclusion in the list as valid at least. I hope there is time to give it a fair assessment. If it is not found adequate for a spot in the list and/or stub article then I understand the removal. I would like to point out that the instructions in PROD clearly stated that it can be removed without comments. My intention was not be offensive but I thought I took one of the accepted actions after deletion proposal. —Tommi Laukkanen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.53.169 (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a prod tag without offering a rationale is technically allowed, but self-evidently unhelpful. And no, the inclusion criteria are not vague; like every other article, notability must be established by meaningful coverage in secondary, reliable sources, of which this article has zero (probably because none exist). —Swpb^talk 13:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find wp:RS - at best this is wp:TOOSOON Neonchameleon (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. A search turned up no reliable source coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 12:25, 9 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 Wrong Venue. - You need WP:RFD which is thataway→. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe (singer)[edit]

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

This page links to "DJ Khalil" leading to the assumption that the singer Kobe IS DJ Khalil. Rayukk (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs at RFD, not here, therefore this discussion seems to be ripe for a speedy close. Everymorning talk to me 21:16, 2 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Reeve[edit]

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

I do not see notability here. Almost every ref is his own website. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's kind of pathetic when you consider that he started life on 3rd base: All that money. All those connections. All that education. Nevertheless, he has produced documentary films (one of them about Daddy) that garnered attention, and he has garnered profiles in real magazines, so he does pass GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you see an article like this, about a guy who gets written up in major publications whenever he comes out with a movie or a statement or attends a fundraiser - because of who his Dad was, but the coverage is real - you should hang tags on it for improvement, but not bring it to AFD.ShulMaven (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject does appear to be written about quite often. A fair number of the hits are just quotes about his father, but way way mor ethan the required two are substantial coverage. For example, [4][5][6][7]. Pinging @The Herald: who accepted this at AfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think anyway to see him non-notable. He didn't host Guardians and NYT..The Herald : ping me 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. I cleaned it up a bit and added the last 2 of the sources cited above by ThaddeusB. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNOW Keep at this point. Plenty of WP:RS about him in recent years, not just his father. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I think this subject meets the notability guidelines head on. Maybe not the most comprehensive sources, but sources none the less to help meet the WP:GNG requirements.Canyouhearmenow 14:35, 8 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 user requested. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Kant the Virtue of Courage[edit]

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

Possible WP:NOTESSAY very similar to this recently closed Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Kant “The Metaphysics of Morals:” Courage in a duty based ethics Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:36, 2 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 College World Series Most Outstanding Player. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. L. Smith[edit]

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

Smith doesn't appear to be known for anything other than winning the College World Series Most Outstanding Player Award. I don't think this is enough to make him notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is a major college award, and winning it is an automatic notable.--Yankees10 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is one of the tops honors a college player can win. The deletionism running through the Wikipedia baseball project lately is nuts. Alex (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very specific notability guidelines governing sports players exist, and this guy doesn't meet them. If you disagree, please point to the exact criteria you think this player meets. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player as a possible search term... but I don't feel that winning this award by itself is enough for automatic notability... particularly when all we know about him is what school he played for and that he won this award. He never even played minor league baseball after this so he couldnt have been that significant of a player. Winning a tournament MVP award is nice, but not enough. Spanneraol (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, college awards aren't included in BASE/N. There may be offline sources, like this one, that can build a case to GNG, but that one is all I found. I can be convinced to keep if someone else can find more on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term, this is pretty much WP:BLP1E Secret ^account 22:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That award seems like enough to make him notable. StewdioMACK (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By what policy/guideline? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say WP:NCOLLATH #1.RonSigPi (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I need to think about this some more, but his award arguably meets WP:NCOLLATH criterion #1. Rlendog (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess I would support a redirect to College World Series Most Outstanding Player, but that's it. There is literally nothing in the Smith article that one cannot learn from reading College World Series Most Outstanding Player. If Smith is truly notable, how can his article have nothing in it? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and there's literally nothing we can learn from the articles about the big league baseball players for whom we only have last names, yet we keep those... Alex (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a difference between playing in the bigs and winning a college tournament MOP award. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe that a College World Series MVP would have no trouble passing GNG, but i did an exhaustive search and could find nothing. I found what I think is a media guide that gave a blurb about him playing there in 57 after going back to school, but I have no idea if it's reliable and it wouldn't satisfy GNG anyway. We've made exceptions for the presumptively notable in the past (single name MLB guys) and perhaps this is another case. Wizardman 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably concur with that. If an exhaustive search turned up no coverage on a modern player who won the College World Series MVP I wouldn't have a problem claiming he was non-notable, but given Smith won his award in 1953 I am less confident that the lack of coverage turning up is due to non-existence of coverage as opposed to coverage having existed but not readily available on the internet. My only reservation about this is that the college WS may well have received far less attention in the 1950s than it does today. Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be fair to say that the college WS may have received far more attention back then with the overall popularity of baseball at the time. I dont know either way, but its possible it received more or less coverage.RonSigPi (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since Newspapers.com actually had some 50s Texas papers, I searched there, and found a couple sources to add to the article. It's routine coverage in a sense I guess, but if the utter lack of sources was the only barrier then that has now been addressed. Wizardman 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Spanneraol, Secret and Mellowed Fillmore's rationales. Non-notable college baseball player who received College World Series MVP honors, looks like a WP:BLP1E scenario. CWS MVP is not the equivalent of the Heisman Trophy, first-team All-American honors, college hall of fame membership, or other major national awards; it's the equivalent of being the MVP of a college football bowl game -- not exactly the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the analogy with a college bowl game is quite appropriate since there are dozens of bowl games each year but only one college world series, which itself spans multiple games. A possible analogy might be an MVP of the BCS championship, but not an individual, random bowl game. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. But my larger point is that it's not a major award -- it's awarded for a limited performance during a relatively limited time. Major awards usually reflect excellence over an extended period of time during a season or career, not a tournament or game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As discussed by others, I do think he does meet WP:NCOLLATH #1 with the award. It think goes above a bowl game award in that it goes above a single game and is for a set of high-level, end-of-season games. I think winning an award like this or NCAA Basketball Tournament Most Outstanding Player meets the criterion.RonSigPi (talk) 03:36, 13 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 List of minor planets: 15001–16000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15500 Anantpatel[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. If not deleted, may be worth a redirect to one of its several incoming links. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000 per WP:NASTRO and this minor planet's lack of notability. "Pepper" @ 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000 per WP:NASTRO; a textbook violation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 04:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Towns[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:49, 3 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) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's played in League 2 in England. That's fully pro per the list on leagues...Cesium 133 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he hasn't (see below)........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is also still in AfC status; the AfD was applied only seven hours after the AfC was created. Rather than the immediate AfD, the creating editor should be guided and the article improved. Also, per WP:NFOOTY, since Towns has played in Football League Two. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY explicitly says that it applies only to footballers who have played matches in a fully pro league. While Towns was signed to Macclesfield Town F.C. for some time, he does not appear to have played any League 2 matches for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Delete as even the official website and the historical database to which they link have no reference of Matthew Towns. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:24, 6 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 19:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys, Girls, Adults Community Development Center, Inc.[edit]

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

Already tagged for non-notability; The only sources I can find describe how much grant money the org has received. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 18:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not establish notability when I tagged this for notability issue in August. ~KvnG 16:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1924 in Tonga[edit]

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

very little content and the only YYYY in Tonga article. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable. Out of curiosity, this type of "YYYY in X" article falls under WP:LISTN, yes? NickCT (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tonga doesn't have any other 'year in" articles, I don't mean to be hard on Tonga, but it's a really small place that probably can't fill "year in" articles with notable events. Article has one footnote, and it's dead. It has one hyperlink, and it's dead. the WP links link to truly paltry articles (about, for example a missionary - linked because he arrived in 1924) but article about him (Harold Wood (minister)) could use help. According to his Wikipedia page, Rollo Beck was in the Pacific in 1924, but the article doesn't mention Tonga and I have no idea if the visit was notable, and even if it was the article hardly seems useful. Willing to rethink if Ive missed something. As for the disestablishment of the Church of Tonga by Queen Salote, it is unsourced but some information about the event already exists on the brief, poorly sourced Free Church of Tonga page. This last is probably the most significant event in the article, perhaps the reason why the page was created. Pre-WWII Tongan culture (South Pacific island culture in general) was dominated by the missions, and which Protestant church the royal family supported was undoubtedly a big deal. Butthat does not make the article about 1924 in Tonga worth keeping.ShulMaven (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lynch (geneticist)[edit]

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

Not clear that this individual would meet notability guidelines for academics or authors. NickCT (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences [8], which clearly meets WP:PROF criterion 3. Everymorning talk to me 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. His top five publications have over 1000 citations each (over 100 would be enough). He is a distinguished professor, and an academy member. So he easily passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. Incomprehensible nomination. Strongly suggest that the nominator withdraw it to avoid wasting more of our time here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - Per Everymorning; NAS membership seems like clear line for WP:PROF criterion 3. NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaromil[edit]

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

Posting on behalf of User:96.57.23.82 who misposted this to RfD. Nomination reason is: "This is a vanity page and doesn't even use the autobiographers real name, but a pseudonym. Then he points to this page on the internet as proof that he is famous. https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20141201.180010.0780a0b8.en.html this page needs to go." Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having difficulty finding coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only RS mention I found at all was one sentence in a blurb about a fork of Debian. Not close to enough for notability. Ivanvector (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The real name issue brought up by the nominator is irrelevant. Jaromil's work is well known within the free software community but only under his pseudonym. If I was looking for an article on the subject, this is where I would look for it. It sure looks like this AfD is in response to some disagreement on a mailing list which has resulted in somebody who is annoyed by the subject trying to delete their article in response. This kind of thing always makes me very skeptical. That said, issues with the article have been discussed on the article's talk page for years and even the subjected has raised the option of deletion himself.

In term of notability and reliable sources, I basically agree with NickCT. I did searches in Factiva and LexisNexis Academic and didn't come back with anything that looked like it would meet the WP:GNG. Some of his work (which spans programming/art) does seem notable and appears from his biography to have been acquired and/or curated by major European and American art museums. My sense is that if Wikipedia:Notability (artists) had succeeded as a guideline (it did not), this would probably be a keep under that policy in at least two ways. It didn't, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. I'll just comment for now and wait to see how this develops. —mako ๛ 17:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such notability is established by coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. WP:Notability (artists) fails because it's a proposed guideline for the art, but the artist doesn't automatically inherit notability. If they are a prolific or important artist it will be documented by reliable sources. I did try to search with this in mind but didn't come up with anything, but others might have more success. Ivanvector (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Jaromil Jireš. I'm not finding much in terms of RS. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that name come up when I Googled "Jaromil". Is the filmmaker well known by his first name? Ivanvector (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but he's the only Jaromil with an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Jaromil/Jaromił is a regular slavic first name. While those see relatively little popularity compared to Christian names, they're nothing out of ordinary. Redirecting to some random guy (a niche filmmaker) who happened to have such a first name doesn't make any sense. If this article gets deleted, I'd replace it with a stub "Jaromil is a given name, blah blah blah", or, alternatively, redirect to "Slavic name". KiloByte (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please consider this deletion has been filed (by unregistered IP users) in coincidence with personal attacks, public threats and insults I have received by exposing myself as co-leader of the Devuan project, a fork of Debian to defend the GNU/Linux distribution from the systemd avalanche, a much debated topic flaming the open source communities. The mailinglist post quoted above leads to some of the incriminated threads. Here a bibliography about my activities as reported by Google https://www.google.com/search?q=jaromil&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&tbm=bks&q=jaromil+dyne . Thanks for your attention to details and for all your volunteer work on Wikipedia: I liked it back when we were sharing the top10 opensource projects podium in 2005 (I had dyne:bolic in there) and I will even if an article about me is deleted by a democratic process that involves legitimate Wikipedia editors. jaromil (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does seem to be related to Jaromil's involvement in forking the Debian Linux Distro (the Devuan project). The whole notion of doing so seems to bring out a spate of rabid personality types and personal attacks. The request to delete the page seems to be coming from such a motivation. Personally, in evaluating Devuan, I've found it helpful to consult pages about those involved. Deletion of this page is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfidelman (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 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. After more than a month, and three relistings, it doesn't look as though a clear consensus will be achieved. Deor (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Morrison "The Bard of Mallusk"[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. A local hero, to be sure, but notability does not seem to extend beyond the Mallusk area where he lived. No indications that his poems were ever published except by the people of Mallusk as part of a memorial. (No quorum on last nomination. Trying again.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely seen as something of a hero by the locals. Plenty of local media coverage, but can't find anything to prove actual notability. JTdale ^Talk 12:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local coverage is coverage, in my estimation, and this is an apparently published poet from the 19th century, so links to other sources will be hard to find except in archives. It would be ideal to have better cites to the sources where his poems were published (Antrim-area newspapers), but I doubt if we'll find those online because of their age. LaMona (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:ANYBIO, a person is deemed notable if
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

so local coverage may be coverage, but it is not sufficient to denote wide recognition. Also, it is not clear that Morrison's poems were published other than in his own hometown newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 13 November 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 17:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 Using what I read as your strict interpretation of that criterion, only folks who are famous world-wide would be included. That would eliminate a whole heck of a lot of WP. The other possibility is that being known in the US becomes the criterion for "wide recognition" which I think would be a mistake. On the other hand, being published in what, at the time, were newspapers that were the main sources of information in an important part of a (at least now English-speaking) country (e.g. the area of Northern Ireland) might be deemed as "widely recognized." I prefer a wider interpretation of "widely recognized" to include parts of the world that we might not all have within our vision. LaMona (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not so small-minded to require "known in the US" as a criterion for inclusion. Northern Ireland is a relatively small country: if Morrison's writings were published in a newspaper read throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, that would be evidence of wide recognition. The article gives no indication of that. The sense I get from the article is that Morrison's poems were published, if at all, in his hometown newspaper. Evidence to the contrary will convince me to change my vote on this issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to time travel to 1870's, however it does look like Belfast_Telegraph was a major northern Ireland paper, even at that time. It's a bit hard to apply current concepts to those days, when a physical newspaper traveled by horse and buggy to reach its readers, and when distances were measured very differently from what they are today. There probably was no newspaper common to the entirety of Ireland in 1870's, which at that time was a single political unit, although most likely physically unreachable by any single news publication. The Telegraph today is very much a regional paper, not a "local" one, even winning awards as such. However, that is complicated by the later separation of the two "Irelands" such that what we know of as "Northern Ireland" now has political and social barriers dividing it from the rest of the island. I don't know if it is available in the Republic known as "Ireland". LaMona (talk) 17:29, 21 November 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 10:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LaMona: To clarify, Morrison was born in 1881, and would have had the height of his activity in the early to mid twentieth century, so we need not travel back as far as 1870 to assess his notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful info on published poet with valid sources. What more can we ask for?: in-line sources would be good. but notability seems clear.ShulMaven (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ShulMaven: What more could we ask for? Being published is really not the bar we set for any author or poet. We need evidence that any independent source outside his hometown fans ever published a single word about Mr Morrison. Were his poems analyzed or reviewed in any anthology, other than those produced by his hometown fans? So far, I have seen no evidence of such. Without such independent sources, any analysis of Morrison's poetry becomes WP:OR, and if we remove that, we have an article that basically states "William Morrison was a poet who became known as the Bard of Mallusk." No other fact in the article is verifiable by any significant source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 I do see your point. On the other hand, I googled "william Morrison" + Mallusk) and they are naming parks and writing articles about him now, 40 some odd years after his death. To my judgment, being loved and remembered that way within a region seems to confer notability. ShulMaven (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ShulMaven: Localities name parks after local heroes all the time, making for some local notability. But that's not the same as global notability. And the naming of a park still provides us with no source material from which to generate a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

global notability isn't in question, certainly it is not required. This is a more borderline case. A minor local poet, although with a name as common as William Morrison it is difficult to know how widely he may have been he was published; by no means are all 20th century poetry magazines searchable. But the reason I hesitate to delete is that he clearly is attracting attention in the Northern Ireland neighborhood where he lived. It's not a memorial page, it's not a vanity page, it's a page put but because people in a small corner of the Anglosphere appear to pay some attention to this man's writing.ShulMaven (talk) 22:31, 1 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, SpinningSpark 15:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be some RS coverage on the subject, but even if this article did meet WP:GNG it seems like a pretty clear case for WP:DYNAMITE. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 2 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 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Ansi[edit]

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

This was a contested PROD. Original reason was Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting and his upcoming fight for a minor title (UBO) doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. His upcoming fight for a minor title will not confer notability and he lacks the significant independent coverage required to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:53, 7 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 per consensus. The issues of potential self-promotion have apparently been resolved through the editing process. ^{(non-admin closure)} Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Fernandez[edit]

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

This article was pretty obviously started as an attempt at self promotion. Not clear that this individual would meet notability guidelines for academics. I'm surprised this article hadn't come up for deletion earlier. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Arifer (talk · contribs) / Ariel Fernandez This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (COI determined at SPI here.)

The notability issues and the promotional issues have already been sorted out and the article in its current form has been mostly composed, edited and approved by senior Wikipedia editors. The current version is not considered promotional and the notability of the subject has been asserted by Wikipedia senior staff.190.16.58.196 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Maureen (note, striking comment by one of ariel's socks; IP address is the same as one where Ariel self-identifies below. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick, I welcome your motion of deleting this article from Wikipedia on grounds of notability. In fact it should be tagged for SPEEDY DELETION. I concur with you in that I am certainly not notable and I am not an important person. I request and welcome the deletion of this article that has me as the subject. Please write to me if you need to verify my identity. Ariel Fernandez ([email protected] 190.16.58.196 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)Reply to (first) IP comment above: I'm not sure you've entirely addressed the nomination with that comment. Unless the article's subject has suddenly met one of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS since this article was nominated for deletion I can't see how the notability issues can have been resolved. For the record, "Wikipedia senior staff" are not considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is well-known enough and there are plenty of sources to support WP:NOTABILITY, and I edited out the WP:PROMO aspects. The only reason I would support deleting the article is that Ariel, the subject of the article (who was banned for socking and then came back later with yet more socks, which continued to add self-promotional material) monitors the article and, as recently happened, over-reacts and makes legal threats via yet more socks. (And he continues to play games as one can see above, with the post from "Maureen" saying "keep" while he writes again as "Ariel" saying "delete") However, I don't think that a difficult article subject, is a valid reason to delete an article. Because Ariel has been site-banned, his posts above should perhaps be deleted, but since the one that he owned-up to is reasonable in tone and it is useful to have his voice in the discussion, I think we should let it stand. However, in my view we should delete future contributions if they become unreasonable or otherwise disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - re "plenty of sources to support" - You want to expand on that? Cause at the moment I'm seeing one piece in Nature that lends this guy any kind of notability. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) he held a named chair and 2) Nature News saw fit to publish a piece on the importance of some of his work and Scientific American saw fit to reprint that piece. That checks 2 of the boxes on WP:NACADEMICS. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - So I guess "plenty of sources to support" meant one source? ~~Granted he seems to meet the named chair criteria 5, but what other criteria do you think he makes?~~ NickCT (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Striking comment. Explanation below NickCT (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The 1st bullet in NACADEMICS is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and please read what follows the "2" in my post above, which I think meets that bullet. Maybe you disagree. but meeting one bullet is enough. and i find the guy pretty disgusting, or i would add content about his journal editing, and his startup company, and other work outside of academia, which is pretty easy to source. this is a snowclose based on the named professorship. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - re "The 1st bullet in NACADEMICS is" - You're taking that one article as evidence of significant impact. Seems a little thin, no?

You know, I'm not even sure this guy technically meets criteria 5. Did he actually hold an endowed professorship? NickCT (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I already asked on the article talk page, what distinction do you think you are trying to draw? There is absolutely no difference in practice between a named and an endowed professorship. You might think that you could name something without endowing it, but that doesn't actually ever happen. In any case, it is the honor of the naming, not the money of the endowment, that the WP:PROF criterion is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - re "not the money of the endowment, that the WP:PROF criterion is about." - Really? Because if you click on "named chair" under criteria 5, it specifically calls out that a named chair is paid for through endowment.

re "You might think that you could name something without endowing it, but that doesn't actually ever happen." - Not that I don't trust you, but are you sure this is the case? I'm not sure this was necessarily true at some of the academic institution I'm familiar with. NickCT (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some extremely rare examples [9]. Nevertheless I think you're trying too hard to read the literal words of the notability criterion and completely missing the point of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - Am I missing the point? I'm familiar with a number of academic institutions where a named professorship simply isn't as prestigious as an endowed chair (i.e. less honor, less money with a named professorship). Regardless, the policy says "chair" and I can't find a good source saying that this guy technically held a chair. NickCT (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the Karl F. Hasselmann Chair of Engineering now [10]. It's not impossible that it was changed, but given that Hasselmann has been dead for decades now, that seems unlikely. I think this is established not above all doubt, but above reasonable doubt... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: - Looking at how Rice treats this, they seem to call some people "KFH Chair of Engineering" and significantly more people "KFH Professors". I think there may be a distinction between those two things. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the named chair at Rice. And in view of both the history of sockpuppetry and apparent self-promotion in our article and the contentious retractionwatch material (see article talk page) continue indefinitely semiprotecting the article, as it is already. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein's rationale. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT: Sir, Here is the site where I have posted my diploma asserting that I am the holder of an endowed Chair at Rice University. You may validate with the provost office. This site may be used as reference in the article: http://www.academia.edu/3274858/Chair_at_Rice_University 190.224.156.37 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it meets Wikipedia's standards for sources that we can use within the article itself, but maybe it will at least convince NickCT in this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - Would you recommend I be convinced by uploads from a flagrantly self promoting subject of an article to random websites? If that's how you really feel, then sure, I'm convinced. NickCT (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you've stopped addressing my point by the way. Are you conceding that there's a difference between a named professor and an endowed chair? NickCT (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped responding to you only because you seem to insist on having the last word and not changing your position regardless of what others say. It seems pointless and lame to keep arguing. But I concede nothing: whether or not there is a technical difference as far as the internal budgeting of the university, it makes no difference to how we should treat such distinctions for purposes of WP:PROF and is a an off-topic theoretical discussion that doesn't affect this AfD because there is no evidence for the subject's chair being unfunded. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: - re "not changing your position regardless of what others say" - That's inaccurate. I quite frequently change my mind based on what others say. I just don't when others are wrong.

Do you ever change your position?

And shouting that a debate is lame when you realize your position isn't as good as you thought it was, is itself lame.

Listen, I've conceded that the subject may meet criteria 5. You have yet to concede criteria 5 doesn't really clearly identify what a "named chair" is. Calling the difference between a "named professorship" and an "endowed chair" a "technical difference" seems dismissive. Even WP's definition for a "named chair" says it is a position which is "permanently paid for". Some schools don't treat named professorships like that. Some named professorships simply aren't that prestigious, and aren't great rationales for notability.

You know, rethinking this a little, I think my issue is more pertinent to WP:PROF criteria 5 rather than this AfD. Perhaps this should be a policy page discussion..... NickCT (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per having a named chair and developing the dehydron. I'll be requesting page semi-protection shortly. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the info recently marked as needing refs can be sourced to his VIAF record https://viaf.org/viaf/122315132/ but that also spells his name in the Argentine fashion rather than the American fashion. I'm not sure what it can be used for and what it can't. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced either way at the moment, but I think for borderline notable BLPs we tend to take into account the preference of the subject. So at the moment we would need clear notability to keep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: - Fair enough. I agree that "borderline" is probably the right adjective to use here. NickCT (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stephan Schulz, I have absolutely no interest in appearing in Wikipedia and I do not consider myself notable in any way. I am no longer in academia, save for occasional research work. Thanks much for your attention. 181.28.240.166 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment:I would like to spare everybody any more time on these controversies. I don't think the subject "Ariel Fernandez" meets the notability criteria. I held the Karl F. Hasselmann endowed Chair in Bioengineering at Rice University, but retired from academia in 2012 only to pursue research sporadically. Thus, I am no longer notable. Please remove my Wikipedia article. 181.28.240.166 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep -- clearly meets WP:PROF, specifically #5 (endowed chair) and #3 (elected fellow of a highly selective association). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, I do not have a strong opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted; it is a borderline case of notability. However, I would note that whatever decision is made here should also be extended to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, where Fernandez also has an article. Second, the article was originally written extensively by user "Arifer" (believed to be the subject of the article) as a vanity page; the only reason that he wants it deleted now is that there has been "less-than-positive" material added to it. So if his own wishes are to be taken into consideration in the AfD, then this switch in preferences corresponding to article content should also be considered. Finally, whether this "less-than-positive" material is worthy of coverage at all is another important matter for consideration. I would redirect people to the article's talk page to decide if the various editorial expressions of concern (and one retraction) are worth mentioning on the article at all. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...whatever decision is made here should also be extended to the Spanish-language Wikipedia... This is absolutely not the case. Each language wikipedia is autonomous in such things. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. That doesn't mean unilaterally nuking the Spanish-language article, it means putting it for AfD for them to decide. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bueller007. I have indicated my lack of interest in being featured at Wikipedia for years. This is documented in Talk archives unless it has been deleted without my permission. Second, I have been the holder of an endowed chair at Rice University but now I am retired from academia, so I am no longer notable as I once perhaps was. Third, if the article prevails, I will continue to firmly oppose (here and elsewhere) the inclusion of petty malicious material with no content value that may be construed to disparage me. The incidents mentioned by the bloggers Oransky and Marcus have no relevance. They refer to a discrepancy in opinion over published results and to a paper with overlap with another paper. Finally, as per Google Scholar Citations, my h-index is 28, not 25.190.224.156.37 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez (strike comment by indeffed user evading his block Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

1. Your involvement in the creation of the article is documented [11]. You first started to ask that it be removed when non-complimentary information was added [12]; this is also documented [13]. You are also banned from Wikipedia for suspicion of using sock-puppet accounts; this is also documented [14][15][16][17]. The extent of your own involvement with the article is therefore unclear, however, it is clearly incorrect to say that you have never wanted this Wikipedia article to exist. You only began to feel that way when negative material was added.

2. Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. It does not matter that you no longer hold the position.

3. Google Scholar is less trustworthy than Scopus because it is vulnerable to spam: [18]

4. Since the "expressions of concern" and the retraction are established facts regarding your publishing record, I suggest you learn to come to terms with them. If they are mere differences of opinion, then you have nothing to be ashamed of. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One point to add to Bueller 007's excellent explaination: pointers to new reliable sources covering the subject are welcome, from the subject or from third parties. Many of us don't have access to Argintinian sources due to language and geographical barriers, but wikipedia has ways of overcoming those barriers if we know there are sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, in my view comments from Ariel should be removed and not responded to, per WP:REVERTBAN and the notice above. Ariel lost his editing privileges and is evading his block. This is cut and dry. But others will do as they see fit. I will remove them when they are posted, if no one else has responded. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments by AF in "talkspace" are fine, though he should remain banned from editing articles. I think one should have some kind of (non-authoritative) say regarding the accuracy of one's own biography. He seems to have stopped using pseudonyms in his own defence (at least for the time being), and that is a positive development that should be recognized and encouraged. Bueller 007 (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of leaving this here, only because he is only going to become "more notable" with time. Incidentally, please compare the IP he posts from with that used by Haydee Belinky, who became the primary editor of his page after he was blocked for sock puppetry. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you are voting to keep? Also, if you look at the SPI investigation linked in the yellow box at the top of the page, you will see that Haydee Belinky is a known sock of Ariel. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, voting to keep it. I have a hunch we will be hearing more about him. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand what you are saying, but this is not a valid basis on which to make an argument to keep or delete the article, so your !vote is unlikely to count either way when this discussion is closed. The main criteria upon which the decision will be based are here: WP:NACADEMICS. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Numbers 2, 3, 5 apply in this case. He has also gained some additional notoriety lately due to having expressions of concern issued about two of his papers and for having issued corrections to eight papers in order to change the funding source so that it did not fall under the legal gaze of NIH/ORI. 198.181.231.228 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he seems to have held a sufficiently senior academic position to be notable. Not sure we have to go into anything else for now. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~wp:TNT~~ I'm not sure whether it's possible to get rid of all the self-editing in the article. I don't think that there's enough there for notability although the corrections mentioned - but I think that there's enough from wp:NACADEMIC for me to say soft keep Neonchameleon (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon please be assured that I went over it, and Bueller 007 went over it with a microscope. There is nothing unsourced there, and no puffery. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Then Soft Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 14:34, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Soni Gupta[edit]

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

Non notable junior level career civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It looks like there are one or two mentions in major sources, but no apparent direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Most of the so-called references are in fact dead links. The Times of India is a WP:RS but those articles offer only trivial mentions of the subject. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. A mention of him in one or two sources does not make him an encyclopedic subject. However, this biography can be published elsewhere but certainly not here. Wikicology (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that she is not especially notable as a civil servant, although she seems to be rising in the bureaucracy. The Times of India mentioned her 3 times in 2014 as a textile minister. But I think she might qualify as an artist. She has had a recent solo exhibition in London and had a book of her work published, which are criteria for artists. And there is the "Artist of the Year" award in 2009, though there is no link for that. I added a link for the London exhibition. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:47, 3 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:G4 plus the article creator's remarkable WP:NOTHERE attitude Favonian (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jak Alnwick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. Fails notability per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully-professional league. LRD 13:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. LRD 13:52, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gil Mateo[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Assuming that the awards mentioned (which aren't referenced) are true, these awards aren't notable and can't be said to be major music competition per WP:MUSICBIO. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources to verify notability. A BLPPROD was removed earlier. Harsh (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparent self promotion NickCT (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. The extent of self-promo is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 17:32, 2 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. A7 Secret ^account 21:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Hornets[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete: see Talk:Sheffield Hornets#Contested deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relevant policy would be WP:ORGDEPTH. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the policy cited by NickCT. Not sure how this new team is notable or significant. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - university sport in the UK is totally different to university sport in the US, and the former is almost completely non-notable, especially in a minor sport like baseball. Nothing found via Google suggests otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable British university baseball team. No evidence that subject team satisfies WP:ORG and WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 3 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. The article was speedy deleted by User:Tokyogirl79 per CSD G5: "Creation by a banned or blocked user (Pearljambandaid) in violation of ban or block". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Scoop B Robinson[edit]

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

Non notable journo. Lacks coverage about Robinson instead of by him. 30 journalist under 30 is not a major award. Article was created by a banned editor returning with a bunch of socks. Sourced largely to a bunch of primary sources and misrepresented sources. Of the sources worth noting:

17, 18. Supposedly by Noonan Tom and WN.com. Actually from PRNewswire by Sirius XM Holdings Inc. with Andrew FitzPatrick as media contact. Used twice in a row for the same claim, does not mention Robinson.

2=3, 4=5, 8=9. 10=11, 12=13, 15=16. Each the same articles used back to back to make it look likes there is more sources than there is.

A mix of promotion and deception that should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 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 housekeeping closure: 10:04, 6 December 2014 Tokyogirl79 deleted page Catfish Hughes (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Pearljambandaid) in violation of ban or block) czar ⨹ 03:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Hughes[edit]

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

Small time local DJ lacking notability. Created by a banned editor returning with a bunch of socks. Sourced largely to a bunch of primary sources and dud links. Of the sources worth looking at:

"The Source". A passing mention from Brandon Robinson. And guess who wrote the Robinson page, the same sockfarm that wrote the Hughes page.

11, 12, 13. The same press release claiming he is "the official East Coast Voice of the Los Angeles Lakers." Or is the the official unofficial voice. Do Lakers know anything about it?

Nothing good here, is this a joke? Is this another alias for a rapper/publicist/producer that has repeatedly been deleted from Wikipedia? Catfish Hughes lacks coverage from credible sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 3 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 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage in sight, of a mayor. The city is large enough that she might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but at 44K it is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor, and even the most notable mayor on earth wouldn't be entitled to keep an exclusively primary-sourced article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage and being a small town mayor doesn't grant automatic notability.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it.ShulMaven (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep West Vancouver is not a small town. It is not even a town! -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it has "town" or "city" status, a municipality with a population of 44K cannot confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — for a place of this size, it's WP:GNG or bust. And even the mayor of the largest city in the world would not get to claim an entitlement to keep an unsourced article. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG as far as I can tell, per [19], [20], [21]. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nils Jensen. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than three sources to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many would it take in this case? --Cerebellum (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not about having a particular number of sources actually in the article. It is about GNG notability. Notability depends on the existence of notable aspects of the topic, notable aspects for which sources exist - even though they are not presently actually in the article at present. The test is - more or less - what turns up on a google search. Not the # of sources presently in the article. ShulMaven (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Googling her instantly brings up this long magazine profile [22].ShulMaven (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if she wins the seat in parliament she's running for, she is notable as soon as the outcome is announced. Perhaps more to the point, articles get built during contested elections, so there is little point in deleting this now since someone or orhter is almost certain to start it again. That , however, is not my argument for keep, which is that subject meets GNG. ShulMaven (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL confers notability on people who win election to parliament, not on people who merely run for election to parliament — merely being a candidate in an election that the subject hasn't won is not accepted on Wikipedia as a claim of notability. If they don't have sufficient notability to get an article under a different inclusion guideline independently of the candidacy, then coverage of the candidacy just constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:BLP1E, which is not the route to coverage in Wikipedia — because while it's true that they might win, it's also true that they might not win.

And deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, either — people whose articles have been deleted in the past can and do become eligible for articles again if and when their substantive claim to notability changes. So the fact that a person might win a future election that they're running in does not have any bearing on the discussion; they can have an article if and when they do win, but articles about unelected candidates virtually always end up getting turned into campaign brochures (or ideological battlegrounds in which the candidate's campaign staff whitewashes the article and then an opposing candidate's campaign staff dirtwashes it) during the election. Which is precisely why we don't allow articles about unelected candidates: Wikipedia's policies around the notability of politicians are specifically designed to prevent those things from happening, since we're not an advertising, public relations or campaign venue. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable and in-depth sources have been found and added to this stub. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of every place on earth always gets media coverage somewhere — so if this amount of sourcing were enough to get a mayor included in Wikipedia then every mayor of any place at all would always qualify for an article without exception, and our standard policy that some mayors are notable and others are not would be eviscerated. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm seeing 5+ reliable local sources that have articles focused primarily on her. That seems like it would pass the bar for notability. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than five sources to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, please cease making up your own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [23].ShulMaven (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take 5 sources to pass GNG, it takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources. Three at most. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. If that were all it took, we'd have to keep an article about every person who ever got into a newspaper twice, e.g. as a coordinator of a church bake sale or head of a local PTA. And that would also vitiate the existing standards for the notability of city councillors and unelected candidates for office, too, because they're also always the subject of at least two or three sources too. One or two sources is all it takes to get over a subject-specific inclusion standard that includes specific "subject is automatically notable if they've accomplished X" options, absolutely — but if you're claiming a generic "doesn't get over any specific standard but is notable anyway because sources" pass under GNG, then it takes considerably more sources than it takes to get over a criterion that grants automatic notability. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, please read comments carefully because you are all too frequently misquoting people (including me on other pages). What User:Lukeno94 wrote was: "it takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources. Three at most."ShulMaven (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I "misquoted" how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between: "non-routine, in-depth pieces" and "coordinator of a church bake sale".ShulMaven (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think coordinators of church bake sales are never the subjects of non-routine, in-depth pieces in their local media? They are, and more than often enough that they would qualify for Wikipedia articles if two sources were all it took to satisfy GNG — Wikipedia articles about church bake sale coordinators (and smalltown fire chiefs, and winners of high school talent competitions, and on and so forth) really have been attempted in the past on the basis of 2-3 distinct sources. Hell, even I would qualify for a Wikipedia article if GNG were that easy to satisfy. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tweak that slightly then. "It takes two non-routine, in-depth pieces in reliable sources that have a wide circulation, such as national newspapers. Three at most." Now THAT is an incontrovertible fact, and if you're denying that, then you frankly need to go and look at any AfD and read GNG properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is that "reliable sources that have a wide circulation, such as national newspapers" isn't the standard of sourcing that's been put up for sale here. What we've got in this particular instance is a claim that this particular subject passes GNG on the basis of two articles in limited circulation local interest publications — making my "church bake sale coordinator" example a completely valid analogue to the matter at hand. Sure, two substantive articles in major national newspapers might very well be enough sourcing to get someone over GNG in many cases — but if you're relying on non-major media of purely local distribution, it still takes way more than two articles. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on the merits of this AfD. I was commenting on the fact that you indeed were making up policy to suit yourself, and yet accused others of spreading untruths. Your interpretation of GNG wasn't remotely similar to how it actually should be used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "making up policy to suit myself" — in over ten years of contributing to Wikipedia I've never once done anything of the sort. You're correct that two sources can sometimes be enough to pass GNG if those two sources are of the top-calibre The Globe and Mail/The New York Times/The Times of London class of sourcing, and I'm also correct that two sources aren't enough to pass GNG if those two sources are of the limited distribution, local interest variety that describes the two sources that have been offered here. We're not in contradiction at all, nor is either of us wrong about what the GNG policy is — we're simply talking about two different classes of sourcing that don't have equivalent status to each other under GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there isn't any number of local sources that can generate notability, which was what you must've been talking about. Only wide-circulation ones count towards notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. There are two reliable, in-depth profiles of her, which are considerably more interesting than simply a list of biographical facts and offices held. If she wins the MP election someone will have to write this article again, so what's the point in deleting it now? – Margin1522 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point in deleting it now is that she doesn't pass an inclusion guideline now. If she passes one in the future (which she also may not), then we'll deal with that when the time comes — but the fact that someone might win a future election is not a valid reason to keep an article about them if they haven't already satisfied an inclusion standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian and two good in-depth references so she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there aren't two good in-depth references that meet the WP:GNG. There are two limited circulation local interest references which don't satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 02:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L. Peat O'Neil[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This autobiographical contains many references but the author/subject is a writer. It is not notable that they are published, notability is when sources write about the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all the references currently in the article are primary. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and no indication it meets WP:Author. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think she meets WP:Author, but I can't prove it. To meet it, she would need at least two reviews of her book Travel Writing. The book is found in 373 U.S. libraries, and libraries buy on the basis of reviews, so they must have read reviews of it somewhere. However, I only found one review, in Booklist, so I can't show that she is notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like pretty flagrant self promotion. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 2 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. Deleting the article with no prejudice towards an early recreation with additional sources Wifione ^Message 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Jensen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor. The place has a population of just 18K, which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on a mayor under WP:NPOL, and with just two citations the volume of sourcing is nowhere near enough to claim a WP:GNG pass either. The only other claim of notability here is his unsuccessful candidacy for the leadership of a political party, but Wikipedia no longer accepts that as a notability claim in its own right — under the standards that apply in 2014, if a person isn't already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for other things, then an unsuccessful candidacy for the party leadership doesn't get them an article either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only accomplishment appears to be having been a small town mayor in Canada. Fails to meet the GNG and WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it. 4th time I've seen it tonight in an AFD on a Mayor.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, as far as I can tell he meets the GNG per the Times Colonist (Oak Bay: Nils Jensen convincingly re-elected as mayor), Focus Magazine (seems like an RS, but I'm not sure; Mayor Jensen's flip-flop, and the BC Local News piece cited in the article. Am I missing something? --Cerebellum (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Delete, see below. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All mayors of all places always get coverage in the local media, so the fact that two or three media citations can be located is not enough in and of itself to get a mayor over the inclusion bar — that's just WP:ROUTINE, not substantive, coverage. Mayors are not even really granted potential notability on Wikipedia until the place they're mayor of has a population of at least 50,000 people (or just slightly short of three times the size of Oak Bay) — and even at 50K they're still not necessarily safe, because if the article isn't particularly well-sourced the consensus can still land on a delete. So it takes about three times as many people as this place has before you can even begin to claim that Jensen maybe passes NPOL, and four or five times as many people before the case becomes airtight enough to withstand this little sourcing — and it takes at least five or six times as many distinct sources as this article has before you can even begin to claim that he maybe passes GNG instead of NPOL. That's what you're missing. Bearcat (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and seems to be consensus per Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2013#Small town mayors. Striking my !vote. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per Nom Bearcat. Willing to reconsider if someone can show notability as an attorney, he seems to be well-established with a large law firm, and to have something of a profile within the legal profession in his region. ShulMaven (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bearcat: - re "notability on Wikipedia until the place they're mayor of has a population of at least 50,000 people" - Can you point to the policy page that calls this out? NickCT (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed that this was a policy. If it is not, I will reconsider. Running a county seat with 20- 40,000 or so thousand inhabitants is a significant job.ShulMaven (talk)

Bearcat, should cease making up his own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [24]. and here [25], where he asserts that ">3" or ">5" published articles are some sort of official standard for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Coverage even among local sources seems pretty limited. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being elected Mayor is notable. Jensen is clearly a locally notable member of the bar. And many more news articles and other sources on Jensen exist than are represented on this page.ShulMaven (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the subject passes WP:GNG. The subject does not have WP:ROUTINE coverage. This article in the Times Colonist is about the subject's role he plays as Mayor of a Fox TV series Gracepoint. He also received some coverage of his work as a solicitor. It may be a week keep, but a keep nontheless. --Enos733 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny.ShulMaven (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small town mayor. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NPOL, at least not according to the sources. The filming of the TV episode made it sound like a really small town. The city council unaminously approved the closing of 3 blocks of Oak Bay Avenue, they touched up the windows of the local bar and grill... Not a very notable story. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:37, 7 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 07:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 Thibault Square[edit]

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

I had nominated this article for deletion via WP:PROD, but it was removed via the creator. Some of the sources supplied[26][27] look suspiciously like press releases, and the only other source with much content, from iol.co.za, doesn't seem enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. I couldn't find any other likely-looking sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Second tallest building in one of Africa's major cities. Looks notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This building appears to be architecturally interesting, especially the "34-degree diagonal twist". However, the building has changed names a number of times so it is difficult to find articles on it. The link to the architectural firm is dead, which doesn't help. I can't find anything of significance. LaMona (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:15, 2 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 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torah from the top[edit]

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

A biblical TV show that is put on the internet and broadcast on a local Christian TV station. Only two episodes have been produced so far. A search on Google for "Torah From the Top" gives less than 20 unique hits and they are not all for the show. Except for a local TV news interview, I can't find any other refs. Prod was removed because the show had over 1,000,000 viewers. I haven't a clue where that number came from. Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability, and per PROD seems unlikely that, as of now, any sources can be found to establish it. Way too soon for an article. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show's notability cannot be established, fails WP:GNG. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 3 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 RESULT: Speedy close. Uncontroversially redirected to cholesterol by nominator. Non-admin closure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-HDL cholesterol[edit]

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

Should be merged to cholesterol or hypercholestrolemia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a copy and paste violation. Thus deleted and redirected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 2 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, snow close. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy Twist[edit]

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

This article is about a short film that is claimed to have been released within the last few days. However, no sources are provided, and I can't find any sites (other than Wikipedia and possibly mirrors of it) that even mention this film -- not even a Facebook page for the film or anything like that. The film does not even have an IMDb listing and clearly does not satisfy any criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). I don't think any speedy deletion criteria apply, and the article has already been WP:PRODed once with the proposed deletion being rejected by the article creator, so I am taking this page to AFD so it can be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could even be a hoax, as nothing is verifiable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Hoax is likely. Nothing checks out. A film made 6 year ago but was released on Sunday. The only time I have ever known a film to be released on that day of the week is if Christmas is the same day. There are google hits for some of the names listed but none of them are in the film business that I can find. I checked youtube on the off chance that this is a amateur production and found nothing. Lastly a 15 minute film that engenders this edit summary when removing the prod strains AGF to the breaking point. Further the IP creates the draft version Draft:Pregnancy Twist at 14:46. Even though it has not been submitted for review it gets moved to main space three minutes later. IMO our chain is being well and fully yanked. MarnetteD|Talk 06:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it's likely that the article is a hoax, because none of the content on the article is verifiable. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 07:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an unsourced hoax that probably should have been CSD G3'd. There's still a userspace draft that, if improved, I guess could try to go through the submission process like any other. Well, assuming this isn't a total hoax. So long as the article is up it's also a passive BLP violation against those persons listed. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time (if ever) that the project by these two Canadian youngsters can meet WP:NF. At kindest, this is waaaaay TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not notable, no references and I can't find any coverage. Also could be a hoax. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per CSD A7 The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likhoni[edit]

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

Can't identify the significance Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. No indication of significance. NickCT (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: The above rationale for deletion is not a good one to me. It does not clearly state the reason why the article should be deleted. AfD Requires appropriate rationale for deletion. Wikicology (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: - Maybe so. "no indication of significance" is a criteria for speedy deletion really. I do think it's basically synonymous with "No coverage in RS" though, which is a good rationale. NickCT(talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above rationale is not the appropriate one for an AfD nomination. However, "No indication of significance" is a rationale for "Speedy deletion" and if that is the rationale for deletion per the nominator's argument, then he needs not to bring it here for any discussion but tagged it per CSD#A7 in the first instance. "No indication of significance" is not in anyway synonymous to "No coverage in RS" ( which is a good rational for deletion at AfD). "No indication of significance" is never a primary valid argument for deletion here but for WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Even if an article will still get deleted per our consensus here, yet all protocol must be duely observed. Wikicology (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: - re "yet all protocol must be duely observed." - Seems like you're being a stickler for semantics, but you've got a point. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 4 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) 02:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil brady[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:19, 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 03:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IMDb not a WP:RS. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 7 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) 02:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Johnson[edit]

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

I've tried to find some way to get this past WP:GNG, but cannot find it. Article topic is an assistant professor without many (any) distinguished publications (an article in GAWKER). I am at a loss to find anything written about the professor. The article itself does not make any claims that the asst professor is notable, per se, so could be CSD A7, but failed the review. Also failed PROD as article creator took down the tag. —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. There is some coverage of her in student newspapers [28] [29] but I don't think these are reliable enough to make her notable. Everymorning talk to me 02:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Early career academic may well be notable someday, but I can find little to support notability now.ShulMaven (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fits one of the standard deletion profiles: Entry-level academic having not yet made any real impact (in this case, on the order of a dozen total citations in GS) with article having been created by SPA. Perhaps notable someday, but not now. Agricola44 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 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) 02:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Democratic National Convention[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Not yet. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously WP:TOOSOON.--JayJasper (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FUTURE. This future event will presumably take place, but there is nothing useful that can be said about it yet. The 2016 Democratic National Convention doesn't even have a date or location yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; compare to WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL - The article should be created in 2020 not 5 years before!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The event will most likely take place, but like others have said, the convention in 2016 doesn't even have a set location yet. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think this article's got a snowball's chance in Hell. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 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, WP:NOTHOST and WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holt economic quiz answers[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, it is (or is supposed to be, anyway) a collection of answers for a quiz. This violates WP:NOTHOWTO. Everymorning talk to me 02:23, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euroleague Finals[edit]

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

All the text is mentioned with a better format in the Euroleague Basketball#Finals article. Asturkian (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, unless the article is improved with more information about the Finals (for example: attendance, top scorers) it isn't necessary to have the same page twice. --H-Hurry (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not needed to have the same info twice. Kante4 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article should definitely be kept. Someone is simply adding this article's info to the other article. No reason at all to then delete this article which is itself very pertinent.Bluesangrel (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now Bluesangrel added info to the article it's not necessary more discuss, imo. Asturkian (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add the attendance figures also later when I have time, as that was mentioned, and I think that is a good idea also to add that info.Bluesangrel (talk) 14:13, 22 November 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, Good afternoon (talk) 13:24, 24 November 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 02:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Euroleague Basketball#Finals would be too long if the pages merged. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Cole[edit]

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

While Cole is a legal scholar quoted very often in newspapers, I have been unable to find a single third-party source that discusses Cole himself in any detail. Our current article is entirely based on primary sources plus a single passing mention in his university's student newspaper. That's not enough to meet either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic keep under Wikipedia:scholar because he holds an endowed chair at Georgetown University See WP:PROF criterion 5.ShulMaven (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: "a legal scholar quoted very often in newspapers", named chair. Obvious meet of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Named professorship, plus plenty of sources covering him personally in detail (I added a couple of such sources to the article). Hard to see how the nominator could not find those. Here is a sample quote from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression citation for the William Brennan Award[30] "Georgetown University Law Center Professor [David Cole] is one of the nation’s most accomplished advocates for freedom of expression and an outstanding scholar of the First Amendment. As an attorney, Cole has litigated a number of major First Amendment cases, including Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman, which established that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment, and National Endowment of the Arts v. Finley, which challenged the constitutionality of content restrictions on federal art funding." No need to go further. Passes both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think an ACLU press release about their own activities is considered a reliable third-party source. If there's any third-party coverage of the award he received, as opposed to coverage by the organization bestowing the award, I haven't found it - and apparently neither have you. I agree Cole sounds as if there should be quite a bit of third-party coverage. I haven't seen any, though, nor has anybody here presented any. Huon (talk) 01:51, 8 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) "Pepper" @ 03:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knez (singer)[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage. Jacona (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Is it that hard to google:Nenad Knežević Knez? Or verify that he's going to represent his country on Eurosong, which makes him pretty much automatically notable. Yes, the article is way too under-sourced, but Afd is not cleanup. No such user (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed otherwise we wouldn't be here, Also as NSU notes he's representing Eurovision next year so it's simply nonsensical to delete the article or even nominate it tbh...... –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This was noted once before at another AfD regarding a Eurovision 2015 participant for Belgium Loïc Nottet, and that resulted in a keep consensus. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - a eurovision participation is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Cargill[edit]

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

Single credible reference. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found plenty of sources with a Google search. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How can one say Found plenty of sources with a Google search yet not list one single source here ... WP:ILIKEIT ins't a valid reason to keep an article, Anyway I on the other hand haven't found anything except Facebook crap so per nom fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages to Reliable sources that established the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 08:28, 2 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) 09:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be more notable as a dancer than a football player. And here is a source. http://www.toeandheel.com/profile.php?id=16 --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye, that is not a reliable source by any stretch of the definition... czar ⨹ 03:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, either as a footballer or a dancer. Fails GNG. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 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 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Silvey[edit]

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

Silvey spent a long time in baseball, but he never did anything that was inherently notable. Minor league player? No. Scout? No. Minor league manager? No. Low-to-mid level executive? No. I could see him having a 'hybrid' case, but a perfunctory review of Google doesn't reveal too many strong references. His article seems like it tries to make him notable through association: He worked under Bing Devine, Bob Howsam and Stan Musial. He worked alongside Eddie Stanky. The teams he was associated with had Steve Carlton and Tim McCarver ... and so forth. Alex (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that pushes him past the GNG barrier. Wizardman 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:N and fails GNG as Wiz has stated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:27, 2 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 List of minor planets: 10001–11000#10038_Tanaro. czar ⨹ 03:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10038 Tanaro[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria, but this is an area where notability is debated, so thought best to have proper discussion at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially speedy redirect to List of minor planets: 10001–11000#38 per WP:NASTRO and this minor planet's lack of notability. "Pepper" @ 01:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 10001-11000 per WP:NASTRO; a textbook failure of the guidelines. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per WP:NASTRO#Examples; the section is instructive here. Deadbeef 02:14, 2 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 07:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talstra[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a city not large enough (11K) to confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — and the only other claims of notability here involve the winning of awards like the local "Order of Terrace" and the Queen's Jubilee Medal, neither of which would qualify a person for a Wikipedia article in and of themselves. And the volume of sourcing here doesn't get within 100 miles of WP:GNG, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like any LinkedIn profile. Also page created by what seems to be a single purpose user - suspiciously like self-publicity, not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG and WP:NPOL. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:NPOL. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search reveals some coverage in very small local newspapers, but nothing in a major newspaper or other clearly reliable source. Having a street named after you [31] doesn't contribute much to notability if it's in a town with a population of just 11K. Everymorning talk to me 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Like having a street named after you, receiving the "Order of Terrace" doesn't mean much when "Terrace" is a town of 11K people. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:26, 3 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) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spylacopa[edit]

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

No reliable sources found through Google. No sources in article at all. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg Puciato; this is not notable independently of him but has been covered in a few independent RS's. [32] [33] If there were a few more I would vote keep but I'm not sure this is enough to make them notable enough for a stand alone article. Everymorning talk to me 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. Fails GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there aren't any reliable sources, it fails to meet WP:NMUSIC (as nom stated), and there isn't any evidence of notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson A. Altieri[edit]

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

BLP lacking independent, secondary sources. Unlikely this individual is notable enough to allow neutrally-sourced coverage. —Swpb^talk 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 21:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 21:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 November 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!*} 00:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability for Military officers; there is no evidence that this colonel has done anything special, and we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 6 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. SpinningSpark 01:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Gibbons Madeira[edit]

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

A dancer who won a stage of the 2008 and 2011 US Tango Championships. Whether this is a notable competition or whether these stage wins are sufficient to tip her over the WP:GNG criteria, is open to question. Article seems to be autobiographical (the personal info is uncited) from the outset. Two editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists tried unsuccessfully to find wider in-depth coverage. The 'notable performances' were part of larger dance groups and Madiera only warrants brief name checks. Personally I would go for a polite Weak delete on this one. Sionk (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 24 November 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, Biblioworm 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 19:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:GNG, only claim to fame is a stage win at a non-notable competiton. The competition doesn't even have an article! The article is a borderline A7, and given the PROD on the article four years ago had similar concerns, the article should be deleted. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aerospeed and Sionk; the article evidently doesn't meet WP:GNG. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:49, 2 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 Hannibal . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Hannibal[edit]

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

I don't see the purpose of this misleadingly titled and redundant article. What's here that's not in Hannibal? I pledge eternal hatred for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. Nearly all of this is, in fact, a word-for-word copy of parts of Hannibal. Only fails A10 speedy deletion by its long history. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to have gone missing in the day-by-day listings. I believe I have corrected the issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannibal, his conquests should be mentioned in his article. If anyone was bold enough, they'd put a G12 on the article. I'm not sure, but is copying straight from another wiki article allowed? Doesn't seem right to me. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some serious excavation, it looks like the first edit of Conquests of Hannibal was a copy/paste job from the Hannibal article of 2007. There does not appear to be any attempt to split, so I'd treat it as a duplication or redundant content fork. As for whether the title makes for a good redirect, "conquests of Hannibal" refers to his whole life. I don't think it's a particularly helpful search term and if used in a phrase, linking just his name would be most appropriate. @Aerospeed, as for whether it's okay to copy straight, all WP contributions are licensed under cc-by-sa such that it's fine to reuse them in whatever as long as the author(s)—or at least source—are attributed (not done in @Arcyqwerty's 2007 edit) and that future revisions are published under the same license. So in WP's case, it's fine to merge information or split out summary style when a section gets too big, but the author/page should be attributed, and the old section should be reduced accordingly. In this case, the page is just fully redundant to Hannibal's bio. @Rcsprinter123, heads up that you accidentally relisted the page twice czar ⨹ 23:28, 1 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.plasticstoday.com/articles/green-matter-invention-driven-innovation-beats-serendipity-says-pha-expert

[1]