Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 December	22 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 redirect to Our Gang personnel . No argument made for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 03:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Willson[edit]

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

I don't think that this guy is notable enough to merit his own article. Aside from his not-so-impressive filmography, references about him are sparse. OscarL 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A child actor from roughly 70 years ago who never had a major role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Cullen above. I've found anything significant in my searches. Cavarrone 09:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Our Gang personnel The actor doesn't seem notable outside of Our Gang. A redirect might be useful instead. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos de la Garza[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, since 2006, Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:Music. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not some fast-track deletion procedure for unreferenced BLPs? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLPPROD articles created before 2010 do not apply.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Studio musician with a reasonable list of credits and [1]. Some attention in music web sites: [2] LaMona (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Tower[edit]

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

Article on dormitory that fails to satisfy WP:GNG. There are no independent sources. TM 22:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is among some of the tallest buildings in town, but besides that, it appears in The New York Times, Massachusetts A town site, about an incident that was reported in many publications at the time, and many others. If needed, I could ask contacts at the UMass Library system to dig up some information, as I know there are things like this website that have been created because of the information they have. Regardless, just because an article isn't up to the standards of an editor, generally doesn't mean it should be deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That a news event occurred in a building does not make the building inherently notable, nor do those sources qualify under GNG. GNG requires significant, reliable secondary sources. If such sources are presented, I would be open to withdrawing this AfD.--TM 02:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A building such as a dormitory does not become notable just because protests, racial incidents and graffiti tagging occurred there. Being one of the three tallest buildings in Amherst, Massachusetts is not a plausible claim of notability. We would need significant coverage of the architectural or historical signficance of the building, which is lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... and, given that it's one of five such towers built in the "Southwest" dormitory area of UMass, yeah, it's lacking. What this is is just a high-rise dorm building, indistinguishable from JQA, Kennedy, Coolidge and Adams, unless you're familiar enough with the campus to know which is which. It's not that this isn't "up to the standards of an editor" -- it's not up to the standards of Wikipedia, and there aren't sources which meet the GNG that describe this tower in "significant detail," as opposed to Southwest or the high-rises as a whole, or of a passing mention that fails SIGCOV. Ravenswing 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls, and redirect to a new wp:anchor that could be created, within that list. Other similar short articles linked from that list-article's "buildings" section should also be merged back there, probably, as this and others seem to lack enough separate coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's standard for notability on their own. But the topic of all the buildings definitely will be okay. Before I found the residence halls list-article I was going to suggest creating a list of all significant buildings on the campus, to be titled List of University of Massachusetts Amherst buildings or similarly. Note there are currently 35 lists in Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. The one paragraph about this one dorm building is fine as an entry in a dot-pointed list or in a table-ized list, within the residence halls list article. The University of Massachusetts Amherst article specifically mentions a number of buildings that should be included in a more general list-article. Merging and redirecting preserves the edit history and credit, per Wikipedia's promise to contributors. --do ncr am 06:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't give a rat's patootie to preserving someone's "credit" -- that decidedly not being what Wikipedia is all about -- but I'm not opposed to a redirect to the main UMass article, to a list article such as Doncram describes, or to a more general article about the Southwest Residential Area, which has been the focus of enough significant events over the years to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 21:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is part of basics of Wikipedia and licensing terms, that others who copy from a Wikipedia article are bound to give credit, e.g. by listing or linking to list of contributors to the article. Also, IMO, deleting contributions unnecessarily within AFD processes and otherwise, is a big way Wikipedia editors discourage and drive away new contributors, and the trend should be stopped. At least we agree that a redirect is appropriate, and that will actually save the record of contribution and allow anything to be used elsewhere. --do ncr am 23:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage in independent sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AFD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy Tower about 4 other buildings on the campus. Should have been discussed in one AFD, i believe, per wp:MULTIAFD. Commenters here should consider commenting there, too, for efficiency. --do ncr am 23:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Apparently doncram and I have been looking at the same things and came to the same conclusion. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy Tower I suggested merging all 5 of these towers into List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls, and I'd like to suggest the same thing here. I think doing so would improve that article. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / delete. I'd like to throw another merge option into the mix: Campus of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. If the section grows enough to warrant its own article, we can revisit later, but for now it's small enough to fit neatly into one of several relevant articles. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:34, 29 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P'Twaaang!![edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 and A9 - The nominator of this article is also the page creator and all of the substantial content in the article was written by them. The article also is about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The title for the recording artist, The Wipeouters, currently redirects to "Devo" where it is mentioned in the infobox once and nowhere else. Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After accidentally tagging this page for deletion (*facepalm*) I've tagged the correct page and it should be taken care of shortly. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resham Singh[edit]

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

Article is on wiki since 2009, but no citations have been provided to establish notability. Search for sources didn't yield any good reliable source. PROD was contested without providing any explanation. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither do I see any sources that would help the subject to reach the Wikipedia's inclusion standard (Hindi, English search results). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 21:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Oddly, quick searches reveal that a different person with the same name might have been notable. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. in reviewing the discussion which has already been relisted twice, there's really no consensus one way or the other. There's a well based keep !vote and a generic delete !vote. With that being said, I see no reason that this couldn't be speedily renominated if the nom wishes. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vamanrao Deshpande[edit]

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

There are indications of success and perhaps some level of WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, but I couldn't establish it. It has been tagged for notability for almost seven years, so needs a discussion. It is difficult with the non-English language articles, so maybe someone else can prove it. It has no Hindi article, or an article in any other languages for me to glean info from. Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following provide sufficient indication I think that he is notable in real world terms: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. It could really do with input from editors who have access to Indian sources. If we can't find more coverage we may need to reduce it to a stub, but I feel that would be better than deletion. --Michig (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A borderline case of notability, but doesn't seem to be enough for people to improve the page. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foston Musik[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. The record label has not been discussed in reliable sources. The only artist signed to the label is Patoranking. Per WP:INHERITORG, a record label cannot inherit notability from the artists they're associated with. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG....the article is obviously leaning on the label's notable artist.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemon Press[edit]

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

Student magazine. No evidence of notability, save a minor award. Most references are self-published. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NUS Student Media award was after the previous AfD so this doesn't meet CSD G4. However neither that 2010 award nor shortlisting this year for another award, also not notable in itself, provides evidence that this publication has attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither the NUS Student Media Awards nor the Guardian Student Media Awards are minor, and both hold special interest. The Lemon Press was included in a shortlist of four other student newspapers from across the UK for Guardian Best Student Publication. TLP has a heavy campus presence, publishing twice a term and, in turn, six times a year.94.9.74.42 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Student satire paper for a university that has two official papers. Do one award and two award nominations qualify as significant independent coverage? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:44, 29 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 ⨹ 17:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German firefighting fitness badge[edit]

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

Non-notable award. No independent sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this award respectively this article is not a non-notable award. Three reasons: #1 German fire services is a relevant topic and sports keep German fire services going. Physical strength is tested by "German firefighting fitness badge". #2 There are only two awards for german firefighters that can be achieved in sports: 1. "Leistungsnachweis" is a sports competition in firefighting-techniques. 2. "German firefighting fitness badge" is awarded for physical strength. #3 "German firefighting fitness badge" is the one and only physical fitness decoration just for firefighters. German Sports Badge for example is eligible for everyone. (Benutzer:Spirobranchus - 16:19, 12, December 2014)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in secondary sources, all references are primary.Vrac (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 18:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hasn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's clear that there's no consensus for this article to be deleted. In addition, the article has been significantly improved and updated since nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Rees[edit]

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

Promo piece, this person lacks sufficient notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person was an editor of a significant publication, as well as being a prolific poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... the article is full of nonsense like his entire teaching history and WP:CRYSTAL stuff like his future publications. It reads like a (bloated) LinkedIn profile. That said, it would seem his actual publications make him notable enough for inclusion. It needs cleaning up and cutting back but deletion isn't the solution, I don't think. But I'm happy to discuss that in greater detail. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm probably at "weak keep" - none of his individual publications would seem to be notable in their own right, such that he would be notable for having written them. Being prolific is irrelevant. I'm a prolific cook, but only in my own kitchen. Editing a notable magazine for 6 years does, I think, get him over the line, especially given that it was in an era without internet or significant television coverage of the same subjects - it was a significant medium for a lot of people. I've done some work to cut out a lot of the rubbish - mostly the unsourced stuff and the "fan boy" stuff like his entire teaching history. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not insufficiently notable for deletion, then surely hardly anything is! What independent secondary coverage of note does this guy have?! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument and your attempts to turn the article into a 4-line stub to prove a point won't fool others who come here to comment. You removed the salient point (his having been the editor of a notable magazine) as unreferenced when logic would suggest that such a claim could easily be verified by any issue of said publication during the (non-internet) period in question. Do you honestly doubt the claim or are you just trying to be painful? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OTHERSTUFF but a question of where the threshold of notability is here. What secondary coverage is there? What weight should be accorded to his supposedly important editorship of a supposedly important magazine if secondary sources don't exist to guide us? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the claim can be verified, he passes WP:ANYBIO#2. If you don't believe the magazine is notable ("supposedly important") then nominate it for deletion. Once it's gone I'll happily have another discussion about this fellow. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added additional up-to-date information. I suspect we could find more information on his recent publications if people tried.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as (past) editor of a notable academic journal. Granted, the article on the journal is as puffed up and full of irrelevant detail as this one (and even then does not really make notability very convincing), but AfD is not for cleanup. --Randykitty (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep -- As apparently head of a university department, he is probably notable. He is certainly prolific in his publications. The article might do with pruning. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lana Del Rey. MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music To Watch Boys To[edit]

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

None of the sources support the information that the name of the forthcoming album will be "Music To Watch Boys To". Nothing is known about the album, so the stand alone article is not appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON, no issues on recreation at a later/more appropriate date.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. I don't see any confirmation of an album by this title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lana Del Rey. Definitely not enough for a standalone article at this point. This link was added after the AfD, apparently referencing this interview. She only floats it as a potential title, but it's a reasonable search term for people to use. hinnk (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lana Del Rey. this album doesn't deserve an article since there no concrete information about it has been released yet, but a lot of Lana Del Rey fans will probably be searching this title. Littlecarmen (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to artist. Has nothing to do with the title. Yes, there isn't enough confirmation on the album for a dedicated article (I'd even contend that it's not a good redirect because the title has not been confirmed by secondary sources), but the album has secondary source prose to be merged to the artist's page. The redirect follows from that merge. czar ⨹ 18:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If the information about collaborators as well as styles is correct, then we can't honestly say that nothing is known about this album. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:TNT. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schwartz and Paula Mae Schwartz[edit]

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

Promotional article on three people (two in article title) that is essentially duplicative of Schwartz Communications. No assertion of notability independent of organization. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered a redirect to Schwartz Communications, but I think not; this is an unlikely search term and the firm itself is (IMO) barely notable enough for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename They have exited Schwartz Communications and have a new company, Chockstone Pictures, so a redirect to Schwartz Communications does not cover the content on this page. However, there is no page for Chockstone Pictures, and this page could reasonably be renamed to that, since that is the company responsible for the films listed here. There are pages for other production companies on WP. Then there is the issue of references: the ones here are not reliable sources. I found a few mentions in some movie-related sites, but they are a production company, and that's rather work-a-day in Hollywood and does not generally get separate attention. I did find this link: [8]. Their list of films is here: [9]. There are only 5-6 so far, none block-busters but two with Brad Pitt, so they undoubtedly have some clout in Hollywood. I'd rename this to Chockstone Pictures, add the one reference, include them in the list of production companies, and then see what develops. LaMona (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn. This article is a mess, going and coming. It's an article on a person — no, scratch that, two people — but according to the lead, it's about three people? And are people really going to enter the search term "Steve Schwartz and Paula Mae Schwartz" into Wikipedia, Google, or anywhere else? (Suddenly I'm wishing I could see if anyone EVER had searched for that term independent of clicking the link above). Possibly, possibly converting the article into one about Chockstone Pictures might be appropriate, but even then, there'd be significant work to be done to make it viable, and even to prove notability. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:55, 29 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) Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge John Hodgman[edit]

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

Non-Notable Podcaster with no independent references provided. References in article link back to the podcaster's own page and a search on Google and Yahoo yield the same, links that only go back to the podcaster's own site and as stated before little if no independent coverage. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basic searches show that this podcast has received substantial coverage; examples include NPR [10], Rolling Stone [11], Paste Magazine [12], Huffington Post [13]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Arxiloxos (And I'll add to that list The Onion's AV Club). Not only do simple searches show that John Hodgman's podcast has received substantial coverage (it was even spun off into a feature in the The New York Times Magazine), many independent sources appear in the article. A bit of due diligence next time please, TheGoofyGolfer. I understand that many of the citations are episode links, but this is an artifact of the way the editor chose to cite the list of guest stars. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 06:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – References about the show were hard to find amid all the references to the show, but per comments above they do exist. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above, article would be better served by a request for cleanup than by deletion. – Nowah Balloon (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly this article has several citations outside of the podcast itself. The podcast itself is notable and covered by many sources. Clearly the person asking for the RfD did not read the full list of citations before making their claim making this a clear choice for a Speedy Keep by rule. Inturnaround (talk) 22:02, 27 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 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Adlam[edit]

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

No reliable sources have been found for any of this, and the comments in the three PRODs on this version show that specific claims about HMS Victory and the Library of Congress fail to check out; see also discussion on the talk page. The PRODs were removed without comment or explanation. The article author Bozzer (talk · contribs) edited only in 2006, and almost all his edits were to do with the name "Adlam", including Adrian Adlam and an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Adlam; it is possible that this is not a hoax but is based on unpublished family records or traditions, but either way it fails WP:V and we can't keep it with no sources. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete If you can't find anything on a Major General then i gotta start question the article authenticity. Additionally, since there are no sources in the article, he fails the blp criteria for inclusion (albeit this one would've been grandfathered in), but that could give grounds for a speedy deletion rather than an afd. FYI: Leave the prod tag on, after 7 days we can delete it on csd grounds as an expired prod. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was removed, and per WP:PROD it can't be replaced, we have to go the AfD route; and it's not a BLP, because those are about living people, and this one died in 1823. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No records of him in Fold3 or Newspapers.com.- NQ (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's evidence of an Adlam in the company in question, ( http://revwar75.com/library/rees/40th.htm are selections from a book held at the Library of Congress - but I doubt that's sufficient to give notability. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, the dates fit, and that provides a source for the second paragraph of the article, but we need more. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be John E. Adlam - John Erasmus Adlam [14] [15] [16] elsewhere as John Edward Adlam [17]- NQ (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk of the article can be sourced to, and copied verbatim from - Western Historical Co (1881). History of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Western historical Company. pp. 489, 490. - NQ (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see a few lines of that, about a Samuel Adlam b.1816, presumably a grandson. Is there a way to access more of p.489? JohnCD (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the screenshot and a copy - Sources for him being an artist. [18] p76 - NQ (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is some ambiguity regarding the name, but from what I can gather - Promoted from Lieutenant to Captain of the 40th in 1775. [19]~~In 1780, painted "The Situation of His Majesty’s Ship Ambuscade,off the Island of Jersey, the 15th of November 1779." p76. Became major on 12 October 1787 and then Lieutenant-colonel on 1 March 1794. Retired: September 1795. p5During the Napoleonic Wars, he fought alongside Lord Nelson in the battles of Copenhagen and Trafalgar. He served as a Major under Lords Washington and Napier. Made Major-general in 1820, and died in 1823. [20] I'm leaning towards Keep. - NQ (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle and Public Advertiser (London, England), Thursday, September 11, 1794 mentions a William Adlam of the Marines being promoted to Major. - NQ (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That must be a different man - the subject of the article was already a Lieutenant Colonel in 1780. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a senior army officer (already Lt.Col. in 1780), what was he doing spending so much time at sea? He is said to have been with Nelson at naval battles that took place in 1794, 1798, 1801, 1805. JohnCD (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is this - bibliophile.net/books/w_adlam_the_situation_of_his_majesty's_ship_ambuscade_off_the_island_of_jersey_the_15th_of_november_.htm (domain blacklisted) (copy). "The artist, William Adlam, was a British naval officer who served in both the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. During the latter, he often served with Lord Nelson, including the Battle of Trafalgar" - NQ (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Army officers serving as Marines on shipboard had Army ranks, much like the present day Marines. all large ships, and all flagships in particular, had substantial detachment of Marines, partly for ordinary military purposes, and partly to maintain discipline among the sailors DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they would be commanded by a relatively junior officer. This muster roll of HMS Victory's crew at Trafalgar shows about 150 marines commanded by Captain Adair - army rank, equivalent to naval lieutenant. It does not show any Adlam. Captain Adair is also mentioned (and Adlam is not) in Eye-Witnesses to Nelson's Battles, ed. James Hewitt. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Captain William Adlam is listed as the commander of the marines in the Spithead mutiny. [21] link - NQ (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far: this is evidently not a hoax, and I have removed the hoax tag. However, there are still serious inconsistencies:

the claim that he was on board Victory at Trafalgar is not borne out by the muster roll. Also, I have a book of the accounts of Eye-witnesses to Nelson's Battles and if he was really present at four of them in a reasonably senior capacity one might have expected some reference, though its absence is certainly not conclusive.
the dates, Lt-Col. in 1780 but promoted to Major in 1794. Are there possibly two different William Adlams?

Apart from the 1780/Lt. Col./Voltaire sentence, the article is evidently based on the 1881 History of Milwaukee source that NQ has found, but is that really a RS? The information for it was presumably provided by William Adlam's son Samuel. I wonder whether the old soldier's reminiscences became expanded and exaggerated over the years and in family tradition? Samuel was only 7 when his father died.

My conclusion at this stage: there was such a person but, in view of the inconsistencies, I don't think we have solid enough sourcing for an article, so I am not withdrawing my nomination. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, judging by this preface and the review here, the History of Milwaukee source does not seem to be reliable. - NQ (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a Lieutenant-Colonel Adlam. There was also a Royal Marines officer, Captain (later Major) William Adlam, who was an artist and whose widow died in 1849. To be honest I can't find enough on either to make a sustainable article, but I'm incling towards a "keep". There may be offline sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas Philopater: This article is mostly based on the account of Captain Samuel John George Adlam [22], son of William Adlam and Grace Adlam. [23]. Good catch on the second painting. This mentions his name as William May Adlam. - NQ (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NQ: Given that the catalogue entries for the other prints have "Capt." and this one has "May", I'm tempted to see that as a typo (or misreading) for "Maj." I'm rather wondering whether William Adlam doesn't conflate a number of Adlams. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either the subject isn't notable or the article isn't well-enough sourced to clear up inconsistencies. It doesn't make sense to retain this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. - NQ (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Samuel John George Adlam who is the putative source for much of this says his grandfather was "Governor of Halifax". Clearly he wasn't Governor of Nova Scotia, but could he have been head of the garrison in Halifax or something along those lines? The first public park in Canada was "Adlam's Garden" in Halifax. Online I can find nothing about the history of the park beyond the name. Admittedly this might be a wild goose chase, but I still suspect there may be undigitised sources that would establish notability. Any Canadians reading this? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the article content is factually incorrect and it has not been possible to verify the rest. There is a real possibility that nothing in the article as it stands is actually correct. The fact that there were other people of the same name does not make me think that this article necessarily has verifiable content. While I am generally a hard line inclusionist, I am even more hard line on verifiability. It's a delete from me. Greenshed (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: another summary of where I think we are, after remarkable achievements in digging up sources. The article is evidently based on the Milwaukee County History found by NQ, but as the review of that book says, books of this type were compiled from accounts of their families given by subscribers, leading to "claims of famous ancestors, and exaggerated military service".

Independently of that source, there are several records of an Adlam in the 40th Foot, but one of them gives no first name and the other three are John. There are also several records, dating from 1779 to 1797, of a William Adlam who was a Captain or Major of Marines and was an artist, and an 1849 death notice of the "widow of Major Adlam R.M."

The claim that he was with Nelson at Trafalgar is not borne out by the Victory's muster-roll, and the claim that he became a major-general has no independent source, and is contradicted by the widow's death notice.

The only confirmed facts we have are that William Adlam was a Major of Marines and an artist. That is not enough to support an article. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per summary above. Also, this article at present has zero sources. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bevington[edit]

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

The article is nominally a bio of an activist and author, although it's almost entirely a description of his book. There are no independent references and no evidence of substantial coverage by reliable sources, and so no evidence that either the author or the book is at all notable. The article has been tagged as ref-improve for five years and as promotional for three, with no real improvement. I can't find any worthwhile sources about book or author. I don't believe the author satisfies WP:AUTHOR or the book WP:NBOOK. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a couple of references, based on reviews of his book located via Highbeam, and also removed the long text which described the book rather than the person (and hence also removed the promotional tag). However this still leaves the question whether there is enough to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know anything about either of the journals that you found to opine as to what extent they're reliable or significant. But if folks consider that they are, to the degree that something of this article should be saved, this would suggest that the book rather than the author is the notable one. In that event (which I don't think were at yet) I'd suggest we rename the article to the book's title, cut the author bio down to a line or two, and have as the main body the material about the book that is supported by those journal reviews. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Unfortunately I don't think either the book or the author is notable enough for a separate article. The books gets few cites on Google Scholar, and most of them are dissertations. What I would suggest is converting it into an article on "Grassroots environmental activism". I've been looking through the hundreds of environmental articles on Wikipedia for a home for this content, and it seems that we don't have an article on strategy. This has been a major topic in the environmental movement since the "failure" of the cap-and-trade bill, which many blamed on the insider strategy of the big environmental groups. There is a wealth of material on that. So this article could be rewritten as first approach to that topic, using mainly the material on the book. Or just delete the article for now, which I am leaning toward, since someone writing an article on this topic is likely to come across the book. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find Margin1522's suggestion for a page on environment activism to be very generous if someone wishes to take up that challenge. This person's work would possibly be valuable in supporting such an article, even though it doesn't reach notability as a stand-alone entry. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quickly fails WP:42 (or WP:GNG, if you prefer) and makes no assertion to the contrary. A grant writer for an environmental company who also wrote a book. I changed my mind: don't delete. Move, to LinkedIn. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:04, 29 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. Michig (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seed of Andromeda[edit]

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

I declined a speedy delete for this article because non-web-based games are not eligible for A7, and I believe this not a web-based game. That said, the game is probably insufficiently notable to meet our guidelines, so I'm nominating it. Full disclosure: I have not done much WP:BEFORE and I'm fairly unfamiliar with computer video games. I'll leave it to a hopefully more enlightened community to decide. Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything reliable about it. It appears to be another Minecraft ripoff of no notability. JT_dale^Talk~ 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 17:42, 28 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. Reminder to all that an article cannot be merged and deleted since the edit history and author attribution must be preserved at the merged article. This said, consensus is against merging in this case. czar ⨹ 17:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies box office performance[edit]

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

Absolute failure of CFORK policy. Nothing in the article that cannot be merged to the parent article, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. Delete this article and merge its content to the film. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this PR nonsense.-Augustabreeze (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt unacceptable violation of WP:CFORK Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per above, I don't think I've ever seen a article devoted solely to box office performance before. Not sure if it needs to be salted, it hasn't been deleted before so there is no proven problem with recreation Cannolis (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holy grail. This is absolutely a worthless piece of work. Please either merge this with The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies or delete it. DtwipzB Talk 19:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless article fails CFORK - IMHO none of it looks Merge-worthy & is perhaps better rewritten?, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Return it to the fires of Mordor. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Pretty much a pointless article in of itself. GamerPro64 05:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies#Box office - It's unnecessary to have two near copies of the same article section. Selective merging would be best. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD A10, clearly a duplicate article of The Hobbit:The Battle of the Five Armies. Is it snowing already? Aerospeed (Talk) 14:22, 28 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 ⨹ 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Smoorenburg[edit]

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

Notability as an actor or martial artist not established. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, fails WP:NACTOR Cannolis (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He lacks the coverage or achievements to meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:MANOTE. The only source is his own web page. Jakejr (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G7 Delete Myself didnt found such coverage to establish notability. Derevation (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Once the article clearly shows notability, it can be moved back to main space, preferably by an admin (not necessarily me, any admin will do). Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic D. Price[edit]

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

Two possible sources of notability for this individual:

1. As a former pharmaceutical exec. Sources for this career appear to be direct or regurgitated press releases which do not satisfy the "significant coverage", "reliable", and "independent" aspects of WP:GNG.
2. As the founder of the publishing company Fig Tree Books, a company that has yet to publish anything. There was a consensus at a recent AFD discussion to remove the Fig Tree Books article from the mainspace.

Assuming notability is not established by the pharmaceutical career, can a subject derive notability from an organization whose article was removed from the mainspace by consensus for not being notable?

If this looks familiar, welcome back :) Shall we salt the article on Michelle Caplan? (She is editor-in-chief of Fig Tree Books) ;) Vrac (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Vrac (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable independent sources. There's not even a fig leaf to cover this rewarmed previously deleted article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic D. Price has not been deleted before. Cunard (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps Salt if it has indeed been created and deleted before. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 18:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
The Marin Independent Journal article provides substantial coverage, while the other sources can be "combined to demonstrate notability".
Globes notes that Price is "known as an executive who saves troubled companies".
Frederic D. Price was the CEO of BioMarin Pharmaceutical between February 2000 and August 2004. He was the CEO of Applied Microbiology in 1996. (See The New York Times's article about the company, where Price is extensively quoted.)
Price was a Vice President of Pfizer between 1973 and 1986 and the Vice President of Finance and Administration and CFO of Regeneron between 1991 and 1994. He served as the chairman of Omrix Pharmaceuticals between 2004 and 2008 and chairman and CEO of Chiasma between 2008 and 2013.
1. Welte, Jim (2004-08-14). "Marin drug firm's chief resigns". Marin Independent Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  The article notes:
  
  BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. Chairman and CEO Fredric D. Price resigned from his post yesterday, saying he was relocating to the East Coast to be with his family, which remained in New York's Westchester County when Price took the job in February 2000.
  ...
  "It is difficult for me to leave, but personally, with my family on the East Coast, it is appropriate for me to relocate there," Price said.
  Company officials hailed Price's role in leading the company in the midst of a long and financially turbulent transition from a research and development organization into a drugmaker with two products on the market and a third up for approval within a year.
  "We wish Fred the best of luck in his future endeavors and thank him for his significant contributions," Lapalme said.
  Price joined the firm in February 2000 to replace longtime friend and colleague Grant Denison Jr., who co-founded BioMarin in 1997. The pair met in 1973 and worked together for 13 years at Pfizer Pharmaceuticals in New York City.
2. Weinreb, Gail (2012-07-23). "Drug delivery co Chiasma raises $38.5m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  The article notes:
  
  The restructuring included the bringing in of Fredric Price as chairman and CEO. He previously held several top positions in the life sciences industry, including chairman of Omrix Pharmaceuticals and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (Nasdaq: BMRN). Together with Chiasma COO Dr. Roni Mamluk, who invented the company's technology, the company changed its technology and business model and embarked on a new road.
3. Chartrand, Sabra (1996-10-21). "A company has found protein compounds that could join antibiotics in fighting infections". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-23. Retrieved 2014-12-22.
  The article notes:
  
  "There is bug called Lactococcus lactis, and as the name implies, it is found in milk," Frederic Price, the chief executive of Applied Microbiology, said. "This bug secrets a peptide, or a small protein, called nisin. Nisin's sole function in life is to act like an artillery shell and kill all other bugs that want to kill its mother. So we asked, why not try to develop nisin to kill bugs found in people? Or in food?"
  Price is quoted extensively in the article.
4. Weinreb, Gail (2013-12-05). "Chiasma fires one-third of workforce". Globes. Archived from the original on 2014-12-23. Retrieved 2014-12-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Chiasma CEO Frederic Price has been appointed as chairman, and Dr. Roni Mamluk, who invented the company's technology, has taken over as CEO. Price is known as an executive who saves troubled companies, and Chiasma's investors apparently decided that his rescue skills are needed in more than one place.
5. Williams, Wilda (2014-09-23). "A New Year, a New Publisher: Fig Tree Books". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Launched by Fredric Price, a successful drug developer with a deep interest in Jewish literature, Fig Tree plans to eventually publish in both print and digital editions about a dozen novels a year, both original works and re-releases of beloved classics that have either gone out of print or have never been available as an ebook.
6. Picci, Joe (1993-06-25). "Biotechnology: A Promising, Risky Business". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2014-12-23. Retrieved 2014-12-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Big ifs do exist, admits Frederic D. Price, Regeneron's chief financial officer. "The product has to pass the test of safety and efficacy," said Price. "It can't harm people and it has to help them."
  Price is quoted extensively in the article.
Cunard (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy This article was created by Cunard four days ago, and from Cunard's responses here one can surmise that it is not yet completed. I do not anticipate that the article will meeting WP standards for BLPs, but I think we should give it a bit more time so that Cunard can at least present a mature entry. It may also be advisable to hold judgment until the publishing adventure has had an opportunity to publish. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not yet completed (as is all of Wikipedia) because Wikipedia is a work in progress.
The article does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is offensive to suggest that I would create an article that violates BLP. Please be specific about why you think the article violates BLP.
I have maintained in my response above that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, if that above comment was directed at me, let me be clear that nothing I said should be interpreted as saying that the article "violates BLP". I'm not convinced that the person measures up to notability, however. None of the articles that you cite here are about him, but instead are about companies he has been involved with. They include almost no information about him as a person. They also are not strong publications. But I still am willing to give it more times so that you can find stronger resources. LaMona (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted "I do not anticipate that the article will meeting WP standards for BLPs" as your saying that the article violated BLP. Thank you for your clarification that you did not mean that the article violated BLP.
Regarding your comment that these are "not strong publications": How do any of the sources I have listed violate Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations? All of the sources I have listed are "well-established news outlets". If a secondary source does not violate Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, it can be used to establish notability. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people).
The article from Marin Independent Journal provides nontrivial coverage about Price's career:
1. His family is from New York's Westchester County.
2. He relocated to California without his family to become the charmain and CEO of BioMarin Pharmaceutical.
3. He served in that position from served February 2000 and August 2004.
4. Under his leadership, the company transitioned from a research and development organization to a drugmaker with two drugs on the market and a third pending approval.
5. He said he left that position to rejoin his family on the East Coast.
6. He previously worked in New York City at Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.
7. He met the previous CEO of BioMarin at Pfizer, where they worked together for 13 years.
Library Journal calls him "a successful drug developer with a deep interest in Jewish literature". Globes says Price is "known as an executive who saves troubled companies" and "Chiasma's investors apparently decided that his rescue skills are needed in more than one place".
These sources are not merely "about companies he has been involved with". They do not "include almost no information about him as a person". The sources can be "combined to demonstrate notability" as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I don't see notability as being a mechanical counting up of sources, otherwise we could send bots out to create WP articles. To me, it matters what the sources say, and nothing here, to my mind, says much. I also don't see anything that would be the "precipitating moment" for the creation of a WP article, so I'm wondering how he came to your attention and why you thought he should have an article. (BTW, I've written for Library Journal and I know that they have neither reporters nor fact-checkers, so the "successful drug developer..." will have undoubtedly come from whatever promotional material he sent them.) LaMona (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Library Journal has editorial oversight per http://reviews.libraryjournal.com/about/lj-reviews-editorial-contacts/. That satisfies Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It is clear we will not agree on the depth of coverage provided by Marin Independent Journal. It is clear that we will not agree on Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria's allowing sources to be "combined to demonstrate notability". We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Library Journal is a reliable source for library information, but not for verifiability that a person has been successful in business in a previous time - especially since that was a throw-away line in a short article about the publishing venture. I would still like an answer to my question about your interest in this, because it seems quite obvious to me that it would make sense to wait (at least one year, maybe two) until the publishing house has had a chance to prove itself and then create a page for it. Even if the publishing house is successful, I don't see Price as notable as an individual. He's a successful businessman, and has now invested in publishing. Why not wait? LaMona (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not following this conversation, but want to add that Library Journal is not a good source for outstanding claims (for the reasons LaMona already elaborated). Yes, the site is used as a reliable source, but I wouldn't base an article's notability on a claim made via that publication.

czar ⨹ 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Half of the article is about Fig Tree Books; the other article says he worked for a pharm co. Nothing notable here. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There's absolutely no harm in moving this to User:Cunard/Frederic D. Price. I'd do it myself but I fear villagers with pitchforks :) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:15, 29 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 ⨹ 17:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Futsal Club[edit]

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

Can hardly find any proof that this team exists, let alone meets any notability criteria. The name suggests it has a connection to the soccer club, Cardiff City FC, but it is unclear whether this is the case (I can see at least two of the Cardiff universities have futsal clubs). The club does not seem to have a website (only a Twitter account), so it appears this Wikipedia page is being used as a substitute for their own web presence. Overall, this seems to be a new sport, and certainly not enough coverage for this particular club to warrant a Wikipedia page for it. Sionk (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and (potentially) WP:NOTWEBHOST. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star League[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability from the general BattleTech articles. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to BattleTech#Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- like the other Battlemech articles currently at AfD, this is just a lot of overly long, in-universe plot summary. It is badly sourced and shows no evidence of meeting our notability requirements. Reyk _YO! 09:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Robinson[edit]

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

(Self?) promotional article with weak sources fails WP:ENT Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources previously removed by earlier edits. Picture of artist removed, even with proper copyright clearance. 10 December 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.249.227 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page, now, properly cleaned and all existing pages linked -- comment added by 122.27.249.227 (talk) 2:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete Even if the group itself were notable, this one member of the group is not (yet). There is one source about him, from his school, but that is not enough to establish notability. This looks like a first article by a new editor, so I want to say that the article formatting and content seems to meet WP standards, which is good. It's just that the person in question isn't "encyclopedic". LaMona (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage isn't significant. Vrac (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many notability instances removed in previous edits. Artist has appeared on several notable, nationally televised TV programs, has over 150,000 downloads of his music internationally (https://www.jamendo.com/en/artist/451022/chaz-robinson), and received two nods on the 2015 official grammy ballot for Best Pop Solo Performance -- which alone would be more than substantial regarding notability. (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the pattern of edits, I have reason to think that the IP editor may have a COI on this topic. That's all I'm saying. IP editor, please read WP:PSCOI. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with the subject of this article. Logical Cowboy, please review the feedback on your page regarding the frequency of comments in relation to incorrect allegations of COI. (talk) 1:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't see any evidence of notability online and the claims in the article don't amount to much (Indianapolis is a very large city, but we have no proof of the details or scale of the Christmas-lights-switching-on event). Overall, suggests this is a promotion by someone closely associated with him and Chaz hasn't yet broken into the big time without Wikipedia's help. Sionk (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note citation in article. The event was televised and had over 100,000 attendees. National Television appearances are notable. Wikipedia is not a logical, probable, or effective means to obtain fame. Statement irrelevant. (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Citation is broken and I can't see an alternative.~~ Even if he was *a* singer at the event, I doubt 100,000 people were there to see *him*. It suggests there were several other events and attractions at this Christmas tree lighting ceremony. As for Wikipedia not being an effective vehicle for publicity, I beg to differ. It's the 6th most popular website. I've worked extensively at Articles for Creation and know there is a queue of recording companies and agents trying to publish articles about their products. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not meant to promotional and contains no advertisement-like content. All information is cited, accurate, and non-sensationalized. (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True on all accounts, and the reason I removed some of the excessive clean-up templates from the article. Well done for that! But these aren't the reason it's been nominated for deletion discussion. We're looking for evidence Chaz is 'notable' i.e. been widely written about in credible, journalistic sources. Websites like SnapCracklePop seem to have no editorial control, so personally I wouldn't consider them reliable or journalistic. Sionk (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability -- Chaz is not only a recording artist, as cited and sourced in the article. Therefore, he falls under the notability guidelines of entertainers. Having a large international following, multiple appearances on national TV shows, and roles in large stage productions. Regarding the tag for nomination of deletion, it states the article is written in a promotional fashion, which is not the case. (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article initially marked for deletion based on "promotional" or "self-promotional" issues as well as notability concerns. "Promotional" tag removed by Sionk and marked as "redundant" & "excessive." Subject falls under the notability guidelines of entertainers. Issue tag removed. This article does not contain any material confirming either of the initial claims for grounds as deletion. (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — 122.27.249.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has lasted three weeks. It's not a vote, but four editors have argued for deletion. One chatty SPA IP has argued to keep, all the while removing maintenance tags and doing other mischief. The SPA IP has not explained how this satisfies WP:ENT. In other words, for all the SPA IP's chatty posting here, he has not addressed the policy basis of the original nom. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mischief is hardly appropriate or applicable terminology as I have continued increasing the value of the article. The first tag was removed by another editor and the second removed by myself, as the article DOES fall under the notability guidelines outlined in WP:ENT, as I have explained above, should you care to review them. If not, please allow me to reiterate: Being that Chaz has over 200,000 downloads of his music, nearly a quarter of a millions listeners (as cited above with Jamendo) and substantial following on all of his social networking would fulfill the large following point. Secondly, he has made numerous national television appearances included America's Best Dance Crew, The Ellen Degeneres Show (arguably the second most notable talk show to Oprah), Disney's Shake It Up, MTVs MADE, and so on. All sources cited within the article in question. The reason the article has not been deleted is due to the fact that I have posed logical and complete arguments as to why the accusations are incorrect. Directing arguments towards users and not towards the article is considered disruptive, according to this article. (talk) 01:14, 28 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. Michig (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss It Better (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

Article about a song that fails WP:NSONGS. It has been previously redirected to Rihanna discography for more than thrice. But few new editors and IPs continuously reverting the redirect and creating the article. I support a redirect to Rihanna discography and salt. Jim Carter 10:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for the time being. Despite Rihanna being a very major entertainment personality the album has yet to be released and this alleged single has only been 'teased' (i.e. tentatitvely self-publicised) on her Instagram account. No evidence of notability, or meeting WP:NMUSIC. Sionk (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We don't have a single thing for the song, except the title and its song-writers. As a mater of fact it might not be released. So for now delete. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early, wait until the song has been released. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:CRYSTAL Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through the wolf's eyes: Attraverso gli occhi del lupo[edit]

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

Deprodded stub on the first book by one Adler James Stark. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Sam ^Sing! 09:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this self-published book ultimately passes notability guidelines. Even searching under the Italian title brings up little more than the book's Lulu page and other various merchant and primary sources, along with various junk hits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No worldcat holdings under either title. If Tokyogirl79 can't find anything then there's likely nothing to be found, but I looked anyway.... nada. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self=published book written under a pseudonym, acc. to the Amazon page; book machine-translated into English. Plus created by an account that has only done one edit: creating this page. Absolutely NOT WP material. LaMona (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Box wine. czar ⨹ 17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slap the bag[edit]

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

It seems that this game exists, but not sure if it is notable. Can anyone provide sources of its notability? Natg 19 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect redirect to Boxed wine. There's only one Fox News source so it appears at least verifiable. AadaamS (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as Fox News can be considered a 'reliable' source.... ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to boxed wine as AadaamS suggests. After removing the editorial commentary and unsourced description, there isn't much left for a stand-alone article. Oh, and it probably deserves a mention in the drinking game article, too. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). - I don't ever usually close this early but the outcome's obvious so see no point in leaving it open any longer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucky One (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

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

Article was previously AfD'ed, with the result being "no consensus" due to lack of response. Barely any improvement has been made in the following 2 years, yet redirects to the parent album article have been reverted multiple times. Song fails WP:NSONG as it lacks significant coverage outside of its parent album. Chart positions are already present at Taylor Swift discography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to invite Michig, Calidum, SNUGGUMS, Status, and MaranoFan to this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album) - MaranoFan (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album per lack of sufficient coverage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There were a few tabloid stories mentioning the song as a major point, but only based on rumors revolving around what the subject was about, and its relevance to an upcoming movie. Rumors and hearsay in an article not even about the song in question is not a demonstration of notability. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. All of the essential information now appears to be in the album and discography articles. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). Non-notable non-single which fails WP:NSONGS. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian supercentenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Human longevity articles have a serious problem with gross list cruft, and this is a prime example. There's exactly one notable person on this list, and her notability is enough for an article but very minor. There is established precedent that just staving off death for an atypically long time does not make a person notable, and there is no reason that a group of unrelated people in a given geographical area whose only similar characteristic is attaining the same should be treated any differently. Furthermore, there are no actual third-party sources (i.e. sources besides the Gerontology Research Group) which discuss the topic of supercentenarians in Belgium. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic which is part of a bigger scheme. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem is that the sources and good material is spread out over dozens of userpages. User:Scarface181268 (up for deletion at MFD like so many others) has a few references that should be included. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The whole point is that (most of) these people are not notable enough for their own article - however, as the longest-lived people from a geographical area, they are of interest. You also don't seem to understand the value of keeping track of people at the upper limit of human longevity. Your comment that "just staving off death for an atypically long time does not make a person notable" oversimplifies things. That's like saying that the world's tallest people are not of note because "they're just people whose heads are atypically high above the ground". - Ollie231213 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say that about tall people too; we don't have List of tallest people from India or other such articles for that reason. I'm not saying there's necessarily no place for this information, but having 40 standalone lists for individual countries doesn't make sense. To me, that seems more like an argument to restructure List of European supercentenarians so that it contains each individual country; I think that would be a fine outcome as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical location is a prominent factor when it comes to longevity - for example, things like climate, diet, and healthcare systems of countries will affect the prevalence of supercentenarian cases, so listing supercentenarians by countries is of interest. On the other hand, geographical location is of less importance when it comes to the prevalence of very tall people. But even so, the fact that there are no "List of tallest people from country X" articles is not an argument for deleting this one. With regards to your suggestion about merging existing articles with List of European supercentenarians - I would not totally opposed to that as there are some articles - such as List of Lithuanian supercentenarians - which don't seem to have enough content in them to warrant an entire article. That's not to say I believe that all articles should be merged. - Ollie231213 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair; some of these countries are obviously a lot larger than others. This is one that's on the fence in that regard, but it seems at leats plausible for it to be merged to a hypothetically restructured list. That said, our article on human height would suggest that external factors account for a lot as well, so I'm not 100% on the logic above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dal.komm Coffee[edit]

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

Not sure if this is cruft or advertisement, but it does read like an ad... Attempted to read promotional content/trivia but it seems like this is most of the article. A google news search reveals plenty of hits, but most of them don't seem to reliable news organizations (more like niche magazines for young people). The sources that are reliable, generally speak of famous people using the coffeeshop as a venue, not about the coffeeshop itself (which is what this article's subject currently is). Most of the article's sources right now are primary sources and secondary sources like Facebook and Twitter. I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT as it's pretty unsalvageable. — kikichugirl ^? 05:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was a major violation of "show, don't tell" before Kiki and I got to it; the sources appear to be more of the same, mainly because there is little to show. ekips 39 05:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Revi 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@-revi:. Please clarify your delete !vote. I mean some reasons based on our policies as to why you think the article should be deleted. It will help the closer to evaluate a rough consensus. Jim Carter 10:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ping didn't gave me the red 1(@Jim Carter: I know why - that's because your sig does not include link to userpage (usertalk page only sig does not trigger echo.)), and I got this by browsing WP:KO's AFD list. So, let me clarify; Google search for their Korean terms "달콤커피" gave me two sources, which is written as ad-like tones. And I tried Naver (local search engine) and similar results. As such, I don't think it's notable enough to be included. — Revi 09:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Revi. Jim Carter 09:54, 26 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 Metro (design language). Sam Walton (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern UI[edit]

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

This DAB page is absolutely useless, not directing anyone to anything having to do with the topic. The first entry, Nullsoft is an installer and has nothing to do with a UI. The second is a redirect to a proprietary typography-based design language from Microsoft. Neither has anything to do with the name of this DAB page. If you take out those two off-topic links, there is nothing left. The Dissident Aggressor 21:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per The Dissident Aggressor's reasons. Seems rather sloppy... Dinkytown talk 16:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have a problem with deleting this page, because I agree with the nominator's rationale. However, I notified the user that created the disambiguation, User:Neo-Jay, and would like to know why (s)he created the page before I'm firmly swayed one way or the other. Tavix | Talk 02:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Modern UI was created on 26 October 2006 by Writtenonsand as a page redirecting Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, a section of which is titled "Modern user interface" (Modern UI). It was apparently at that time a valid redirect page per Wikipedia:Redirect (sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article). I changed it to a disambiguation page at 09:37, 15 August 2012, adding a disambiguation entry Modern UI (design language), which was an alternative name of Microsoft's Metro (design language) (see relative discussion at Talk:Metro (design language)#Metro Is Now Modern UI, Talk:Metro (design language)#Move to Modern UI, Talk:Modern UI#Metro (Design Language), etc.). Actually Modern UI (design language) was moved back to Metro (design language) on 12 August 2012‎ and Modern UI (design language) is still a redirect page now. I cannot see any reason why it cannot be a disambiguation entry for Modern UI. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have the entire concept of modern user interfaces redirect to a (probably-too-detailed) write-up of an obscure product's user interface was ridiculous. That element needs to be removed from the DAB page. That is unless you want to start adding entries for discussions of the thousands of other software product's user interfaces. The Dissident Aggressor 13:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree "Modern UI" is neither an industry/jargon term nor an explicitly named feature/copyright and seems to just refer to a revamped user interface. Might as well make a disambig page for "Reception" or "Sequel". Delete. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 07:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @DissidentAggressor: Even if Nullsoft Scriptable Install System was removed from the DAB page, Modern UI can still refer to Modern UI (design language). In this case, Modern UI should be changed to a redirect page, not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think the Nullsoft disambig is too specific and not helping anyone navigate the information on Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In your logic, Modern UI should be changed to a page redirecting Metro (design language), and not be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:24, 22 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, -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Metro (design language) to this location. Artw (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a request for moving Metro (design language) to Modern UI in August 2012, and it failed. You may initiate another moving request at Talk:Metro (design language). But before that, Modern UI should not be deleted and could only be changed from a disambiguation page to a redirect page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are not using that anymore, or are using it only informally, so I withdraw the suggestion. Artw (talk) 20:49, 22 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 14:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Modern UI is a very commonly used term for Microsoft's new UI. Whether or not the design language article remains named Metro, Modern UI shouldn't be deleted. At least redirect. OTOH the Nullsoft thing was obscure to begin with, and a long time ago. Keeping it around in a prominent place just confuses things, so I would suggest jettisoning that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Metro (design language) as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'd agree with a redirect to Metro (design language) if that alternative name were mentioned (and sourced) there, but as it is not, a redirect would be confusing. Sandstein 10:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I just added it there, sourced to a Microsoft vice president speaking in 2012 at a big marketing and advertising conference, as reported by Microsoft News Center. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:18, 30 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. Any discussion about renaming/merging can take place on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Island (Ontario)[edit]

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

No third party sources to establish notability. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The two references provided do not confirm notability of this tiny island. Hwy43 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of new research, I have changed my vote to Rename (please see below for explanation). Jkokavec (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article DOES include third party references to substantiate it. Just because an island is small does not mean it is irrelevant. Sailors travelling past the island will want to know more about the island, including what it's name is. It is notable especially to people residing and working in the vicinity. What is the issue here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkokavec (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Am I seeing double? Okay, but seriously, both sources seem to be exhaustive lists of islands, neither of which offer significant coverage to establish notability. A website simply listing an island on Google Maps is far from significant. Google news search reveals zero relevant results. As per Wikipedia's guidelines, the only relevant information that can be properly written about Smooth Island on Wikipedia is that it exists - and you'd have to be privy to that information in order to look this page up in the first place. Delete, this article is useless. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 07:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ontario article. The island can be mentioned there, article only has to be WP:V verifiable, not WP:GNG notable. AadaamS (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is in Georgian Bay which has thirty-thousand islands. But this is named and appears in the Gazetteer of Canada so we shouldn't delete it. Perhaps we could start a list of islands in Georgian Bay? Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of islands of Ontario#Georgian Bay but it seems not to be complete. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appearing in the Gazetteer of Canada does not make this island notable. Hwy43 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope sailors don't navigate round Georgian Bay using the information in the recently-added reference http://www.electriccanadian.com/gazetteer/sailing_ns.pdf (page 80) because that is a different Smooth Island which looks to be now called Little Duck Island. Google maps is not very detailed but the Atlas of Canada has so many Little Duck Islands that it is better to look up "Niger Sound" at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html or try "Little Duck Island, Division No. 10, Subd. B, NL, Canada" or 52°11′06″N 55°41′46″W / 52.185°N 55.696°W / 52.185; -55.696 on Google Maps. Fair Winds and Following Seas! Thincat (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is another "Smooth Island" in Georgian Bay 44°53′46″N 79°54′36″W / 44.896°N 79.91°W which seems even more notable. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Smooth Island in the Hudson Strait 62°00′00″N 72°16′59″W / 62°N 72.283°W, the only Canadian mention on the disambiguation page before these recent edits [24]. 117Avenue (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature should be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except the name and the location should probably be described in the article on the river." It's not notable enough to be mentioned in the Georgian Bay article but I think it makes sense to redirect to List of islands of Ontario#Georgian Bay. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 16:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I clicked on the coordinates, and even google maps doesn't include it's name. There are 30,000 + islands nearby, I don't think every one of them is notable. Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, its name is certainly there look. For me anyway. Thincat (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. I don't see a policy that all named islands should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful reference: I feel this link may constructively contribute to this discussion. Please type "Smooth Island" into the search field on this page: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html. (It appears there may be a number of islands called "Smooth Island" in Canada - possibly explains some of the confusion).--Jkokavec (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is now a mix of information about unrelated islands, seemingly too hard to tangle. Yes, islands are notable, but this article is enough of a mess that it's time to throw it away and restart. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we can't seem to establish which Smooth Island this article is about. It was originally supposedly about a Smooth Island in Nunavut, and the most recent source added is exclusively about maritime navigation in and around Nova Scotia, both hundreds of miles away from Georgian Bay. It seems likely from the discussion that there are multiple Smooth Islands in Ontario alone, so the disambiguator is incomplete. There is not enough here for the article to stand on its own so at best it should be redirected, but it should not be called Smooth Island (Ontario), thus it should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provided references are not substantive coverage of the island in reliable sources, but rather serve only as verification that the island exists. Islands can be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, absolutely — but small and unpopulated islands are not entitled to Wikipedia articles which demonstrate little more than the fact that they exist. No prejudice against recreation in the future if real sources supporting substantive content about the island can be located — but being able to locate it on Google Maps is not, in and of itself, enough to qualify a place for a Wikipedia article if that's all you can do for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the delete voters here are unaware of the existence of WP:NGEO, which states that named geographical features are usually notable. Sources that help this meet NGEO include this. --Jakob (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not help meet WP:NGEO (which was mentioned above). NGEO suggests that named features "are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." (emphasis added) The sources that have been provided don't really satisfy that criteria. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying a paragraph-long description of the island is a statistic? I think not. --Jakob (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paragraph-long description of various trees and rocks both on and off the island. It's not even a description of the island itself. Yes, it's essentially just statistics. Ivanvector (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics, in my mind, refer to the following information: name (etymology is not a statistic, though), dimensions, elevation, and location. And, yes, it is about the topography of the island. --Jakob (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is why we can have articles about such diminutive spots as Starve Island. I'm in agreement with you, Jakec, on WP:NGEO; the reason I want to delete it is that we've unfixably conflated bits about three different islands. Better to have nothing than to present readers with information that's so badly incorrect. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I've rewritten it from scratch, using sources that I'm confident all refer to the island in Ontario. --Jakob (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:TNT only applies when an article is so bad that it would need to be rewritten from scratch and when nobody's currently around to do the from-scratch rewriting. Jakec has gotten rid of the problems that led me to suggest WP:TNT while simultaneously demonstrating the island's notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename current article to "Smooth Island, Muskoka, Ontario", then create new page for "Smooth Island, Parry Sound, Ontario".

Extended content

Collapsing: this is a deletion discussion, not the article's talk page. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me please explain:

I believe there are 2 islands called "Smooth Island", in Ontario, within 20kms of each other.

The first island (a much smaller one, and the one currently listed in this article's coordinates) can be found here:

(Google maps)^[1], (alternative reference)^[2]

I believe a page should be created for this island, called "Smooth Island, Parry Sound, Ontario", in accordance with the name given to it at this official atlas provided by the Canadian government^[3] (again, type "Smooth Island" into the search bar".

Edit: I have created the page listing Smooth Island, Parry Sound, Ontario. This will provide an extremely useful starting point for anyone researching this topic.Jkokavec (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2: I have fixed the coordinates for this page.Jkokavec (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second island (the larger one - the one Jakob is referring to in the article description) is here

(Google maps)^[4]

I believe the title of the current page should be renamed to "Smooth Island, Muskoka, Ontario", in accordance with the same Canadian government atlas^[5].

It helps to open both the Google Maps links I've provided in separate tabs so you can see how close they are to each other.

We have had a very productive debate about these islands it seems we have all learned a great deal about the potential ambiguity associated with islands named "Smooth Island" in Canada. In order to ensure that future researchers don't become confused, I feel it is imperative to create two separate pages for these two islands named "Smooth Island" in ONTARIO, Canada. Thanks very much Jakob for rewriting the article.Jkokavec (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this page should be changed to: "Smooth Island, Muskoka, Ontario"Jkokavec (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B007'23.7%22N+80%C2%B006'58.6%22W/@45.0316897,-80.1337795,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en
^ http://www.geodata.us/canada_names_maps/maps.php?featureid=FCPNH&f=230
^ http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html#
^ https://www.google.com/maps/place/Smooth+Island,+Georgian+Bay,+ON,+Canada/@45.0311883,-80.0934841,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4d2ae123e1bec453:0x3b9d9b0286e4a290?hl=en
^ http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html#

Thank you to Jkokavec for useful comments, which should be taken into account. Not sure it is proper for those comments to have been "collapse"d or not. --do ncr am 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Island, Parry Sound, Ontario has the same issues as Smooth Island (Ontario) did when I nominated it, all it and the references say is that it exists. 117Avenue (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the title for the topic of the current article should be longer (in order to distinguish vs. other islands of similar name), the article can be moved to that title after the AFD is closed. We're not supposed to make moves during the AFD itself, by AFD guidelines. The title is not an issue for AFD. It can just be changed by any editor, if not controversial, or a wp:RM should be opened if there is likely to be any disagreement. --do ncr am 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector and Bearcat: You have !voted delete on the grounds that the article only indicates the island's existence. However, now it does quite more than just indicate its existence and is a fair-sized stub. --Jakob (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to stand by my delete !vote here. Existence is not notability. The fact that there are so many islands with this generic name, and that there are two practically right on top of each other, is very strong evidence of non-notability. There are tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of islands in Ontario just like this one. Ivanvector (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – and rename "Smooth Island, Muskoka, Ontario" as suggested by Jkokavec. Thanks to the recent additions by Jakec and Jkokavec, it now has 5 sources (4 if we disregard Google Maps) and enough information about the island. The newer article by Jkokavec has fewer sources, but that's a separate matter. If both survive, add hatnotes to distinguish them. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:31, 26 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) Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Island (South Australia)[edit]

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

No third party sources to establish notability. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The article DOES include third party references to substantiate it. I don't understand what the issue is. Just because an island is small does not mean it is irrelevant. Sailors travelling past the island will want to know more about the island, including what it's name is, and who owns it. It is notable especially to people residing and working in the vicinity. What is the issue here? Please explain further.Jkokavec (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I seeing double? Okay, but seriously, both sources seem to be exhaustive lists of islands, neither of which offer significant coverage to establish notability. A website simply listing an island on Google Maps is far from significant. Google news search reveals zero relevant results. As per Wikipedia's guidelines, the only relevant information that can be properly written about Smooth Island on Wikipedia is that it exists - and you'd have to be privy to that information in order to look this page up in the first place. Delete, this article is useless.ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 08:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSELESS. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuyts Archipelago (or merge if anyone cares deeply enough). Thincat (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (see below) Thincat (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Named islands are not notable simply by being named. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the First Pillar of Wikipedia, that it "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". If something has an independent entry in a gazetteer, it belongs here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andreas; also, clearly has the coverage in reliable sources to flesh this out further. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage there. Small and unoccupied does not mean non-notable. Really should be part of an infobox with the whole group of islands, other than that... St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NGEO and the existence of sources such as this. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a South Australian editor with an interest in island, I can provide additional content complete with citations. Cowdy001 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom simply made the assumption that there were "No third party sources." As others pointed out, third party sources. Prodding and AfDing a geographical feature such as an island so quickly without any research is not helpful to anyone.--Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Great deal of new content added since PROD. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost always when I !vote at AFD it is to keep so I try very hard to be more deletionist. Hence my vote above which I have now struck because it turns out to have been a very silly !vote. The article now has references meeting the GNG criteria and, regardless of that, the island is obviously notable. My apologies. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 26 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. After being relisted twice and ample time for discussion, I see no reason to prolong this. Two opinions don't necessarily suggest a majority, but it does show that there's no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica (disambiguation)[edit]

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

All are partial matches, which should not be on dabs per MOS:D Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:04, 6 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 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, they are all partial matches but I'm considering further down MOS:D#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and also WP:PTM. The encyclopedia is certainly often referred to with the single word "Britannica" but is this not done for any of the other entries? I expect MV Stena Britannica is often called simply "Britannica" so I think the ship could be included (note also the set index MS Stena Britannica). On the other hand I doubt whether Pax Britannica is ever referred to as "Britannica". On the whole I think the page may well reduce confusion rather than add to it and that is what the guidelines are seeking to achieve. Thincat (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly worth keeping. A search for "Britannica" brings up the encyclopedia, a number of schools with the name Britannica (Budapest and Shanghai, Pax Britannica the phrase and the Pax Britannica series by Jan Morris. JT_dale^Talk~ 19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Shelburne[edit]

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

Non-notable local sports journalist. Had been prodded but prod was removed without explanation. only (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently a BLP without adequate sourcing. There's also no indication of notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice awards, and has potential, but is not there yet. Bearian (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Cociasu[edit]

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

This player is not notable by project standards; he has no Davis Cup or ATP main draw appearances, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that he is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Wolbo (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Apparently so non-notable not even AfD can be bothered to talk about it. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 08:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources establish notability. AadaamS (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Dora Museum of Speed[edit]

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

Local museum with no evidence of notability. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I found many references to establish it as notable.Jllm06 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (duplicated at 4 AFDs). This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series). These are:

Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent). For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. --do ncr am 19:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating all of them together would not have been a good idea, since they're potentially very different situations. The only commonality is that they were all created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, and that they all had their prods removed by you on an unsupported claim of notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as with the Florida one, there seems to be enough sourcing there & that I found and will add that more than passes WP:ORG. Rather than going through four it might have been saner to do one test case to see if community agreed with your perceived "unsupported claim of notability" but I guess we'll see how they play out. StarM 00:06, 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 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added material to the article. I don't particularly want to support the museum per se, as it turns out it is a for-profit venture that displays and sells classic cars, and probably does not have charitable nonprofit status, so calling it a "museum" is a stretch. And it is not historic....it is a new building built in Art Deco style. And I added a bit but don't particularly like the current version of the article. But there are numerous tourist attractions listings of the museum in TripAdvisor and the like, mentioning it in "top 10" lists of attractions etc., and I think there is some merit to describing it as what it is, differentiating it from more traditional museums (e.g. the Mount Dora History Museum run by a historical society). Numerous short sources exist. Overall, better to keep. Note the other 3 related AFDs headed towards solid Keeps I believe. --do ncr am 11:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete commercial enterprise failing Wikipedia:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: redirect better than delete. I am almost indifferent about keep/delete, as i express in my "weak keep" vote above. But there is some merit in having the museum properly described as what it is. It is in fact one of the major attractions in its area; people do go to it and they apparently pay $10 to visit it. It does have some merit as a museum, albeit a private one partly serving a marketing purpose for the related classic cars company. I am sure it is also partly quite legit, serving a combo educational and entertainment need. There are lots of legitimate attractions/tours of for-profit places that are attractions, and I think this one is marginally okay, though I think views like Stuartyeates expressed are okay too. But, Stuartyeates, wouldn't REDIRECT to List of museums in Florida museums]] (or MERGE & REDIRECT) be better than simply deletion? Prior to this AFD, it was already included in the table there. Adding some more sourced info to the table entry, copying over from the present article, clarifying that it is partly a commercial showroom would improve that table entry. And redirecting preserves the edit history and access to the material, allows for recreation if/when more sources become available, and respects Wikipedia obligation/promise to credit contributors. A wp:ANCHOR can be put in place at the table entry, so that a redirect can bring reader right to that entry. --do ncr am 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this link to anchored table row works to jump right to that entry, now, knock on wood. I am just testing instructions at Help:Table#Section_link_or_map_link_to_a_row_anchor. I still prefer Keeping the article, but redirect to table entry is also possible. --do ncr am 22:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Steel (press secretary)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. No claim is made that the subject of this article has any distinction in his field. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article was created to distinguish from another prominent Republican Washington, DC, political person who also held two prominent positions during this same time period -- Michael Steele, Republican National Committee, 2009-2011, and lieutenant governor of Maryland, 2003-2007. This Michael Steel was a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner and vice presidential nominee and Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan around the same period of time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs)

A) Their names are spelled differently and B) We don't create articles on non-notable persons because they sound similar to the names of notable persons. A note can be placed on top of Michael Steele's article if it was warranted, which it isn't. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Coretheapple said, we don't maintain articles on non-notable people just because they have a similar name to someone who is notable. This Michael Steel article is completely unreferenced and he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Tiller54 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being listed on a website is not significant coverage. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 08:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.google.com/maps/place/45%C2%B007'23.7%22N+80%C2%B006'58.6%22W/@45.0316897,-80.1337795,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en

[2] ttp://www.geodata.us/canada_names_maps/maps.php?featureid=FCPNH&f=230

[3] ttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html#

[4] ttps://www.google.com/maps/place/Smooth+Island,+Georgian+Bay,+ON,+Canada/@45.0311883,-80.0934841,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x4d2ae123e1bec453:0x3b9d9b0286e4a290?hl=en

[5] ttp://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/toporama/index.html#

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]