Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 December 24 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of network monitoring systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Comparison of network monitoring systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research by SYNTHESIS. fails WP:NOT Spartaz Humbug! 23:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Spartaz, could you be a little more specific on the WP:SYNTHESIS problem? I usually associate that with an editor drawing conclusions that are not present in the cited WP:RS. This article at first glance looks to be just a large collection of tabulated facts. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically the comparison table is original research, There are no sources comparing the data in this way. Essentially this is new information as it cannot be found in this format anywhere else. Spartaz Humbug! 08:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
by that logic, all wikipedia articles should be deleted, as they combine information that can not be found in that format anywhere... --Richlv (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As one editor said in the previous AfD, "primary sources are still reliable for much of this content, and such documents can be both exceedingly tedious to put together and extremely useful." Articles of this type are essentially feature comparisons. IMO primary sources are acceptable for information like features. Whether a product has a feature or not is just a fact -- no analysis, nothing controversial or likely to be challenged. Also IMO the article isn't SYNTH because facts are not being put together to draw conclusions. It's just a list of facts that saves the reader the trouble of going out to gather them one by one, to make a table that would look like this article. So my opinion is just the same -- tedious to create, but very useful. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—The nom raises a valid point that not all comparison articles need be notable, but as these particular kinds of comparisons exist in reliable sources I don't see that as a problem here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:03, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Samuels-Thomas[edit]

Jordan Samuels-Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seventh round pick who has not played in the NHL and has played far too few AHL games to be notable per WP:NHOCKEY. Tchaliburton (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. While the likelihood of Samuels-Thomas actually reaching the notability threshold is pretty good, he hasn't reached it quite yet, and it's not yet certain that he will reach that figure. (Ideally, the article could be mothballed until he reaches the threshold so that we don't lose the content, but I don't think Wikipedia has a way of doing that.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally an admin who edits hockey articles undeletes articles in this situation when they meet notability thresholds. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN player and sourced to four blogs and a trivial mention. The (now blocked) article creator knew better, of course, but never cared. And now the clean-up begins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass. Sources found and added to article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He currently fails WP:NHOCKEY. Deadman137 (talk) 20:09, 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, Mr.Z-man 22:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He fails WP:NHOCKEY and routine sports coverage isn't enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone here actually bothered to look at the sources? There are multiple feature articles from multiple major regional news providers in the Northeast US here. Remember, WP:GNG trumps WP:NHOCKEY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the articles that were added and he still doesn't qualify. Two of the articles talk about his trade to and signing with Buffalo, another talks about his play this season in the AHL and the other talks about his time playing in college (we could find many similar articles for major junior players in Canada and they still wouldn't be notable).
His only claim to fame is being a hockey player and that is what he should be judged on. At this time he does not meet the notability requirements. Deadman137 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability ≠ fame. This is a common misconception on Wikipedia. In order to be notable, a person does not have to be famous "for" anything, rather, according to WP:GNG, they must be the subject of "significant coverage" in "reliable, independent" sources. The articles referenced are not box scores or routine transaction reports, rather they are in-depth feature articles, discussing Samuels-Thomas at length, his background, his career, his playing style, and his professional prospects. The three main publications referenced, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, The Buffalo News, and the Connecticut Post are all certainly reliable sources (all three are major regional news providers in three different media markets in the Northeast US), and they are all certainly independent of the subject, thus Samuels-Thomas has been the subject of "significant coverage" in "reliable, independent" sources, and thus WP:GNG has been met. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Elsberry, Chris (2013-04-12). "Quinnipiac's Samuels-Thomas big presence on the ice". Connecticut Post. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      In the Quinnipiac locker room, Jordan Samuels-Thomas does his best to keep a low profile. Forget about wanting to be the center of attention. He doesn't pull pranks, doesn't joke around. In fact, there are times when he barely makes a sound.

      "I just sit there and keep my head down," he says.

      On the ice, however. That's a different story.

      "He plays big man hockey," defenseman Zach Davies said.

      At 6-foot-4, Samuels-Thomas, who was born in West Hartford and grew up in Windsor, is almost impossible to hide. And that's fine. His role is to be in the middle of it all. Just look toward the net, that's usually where you'll find the player his teammates call Gator.

    2. Gordon, Kevin (2011-04-05). "Samuels-Thomas won't return to Falcons". Sentinel-Tribune. Bowling Green, Ohio. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      Sophomore forward Jordan Samuels-Thomas won’t return to the Bowling Green Falcon hockey team next season, coach Chris Bergeron said Tuesday afternoon.

      The 6-foot-3, 198-pound wing has been the team’s leading scorer in each of his two seasons, totaling 46 points in 71 games. He had 20 goals and 26 assists in his two seasons at BG.

    This is in addition to the sources Ejgreen77 (talk · contribs) has already added to the article:
    1. "Amerks' Samuels-Thomas making his mark". Democrat and Chronicle. November 4, 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    2. "Sabres' prospect Samuels-Thomas seen as a good fit". The Buffalo News. July 15, 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-15. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    3. "Sabres Trade For Jordan Samuels-Thomas". Time Warner Cable News. July 9, 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-15.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jordan Samuels-Thomas to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as passes the main notability guideline, taking precedence over the subject specific guidelines. The coverage in multiple reliable sources easily meets the main notability guideline such as in this article. Davewild (talk) 11:24, 31 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cue (Film)[edit]

Cue (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There does not seem to be any outside reference to the article that builds the notability of the subject. Furthermore, the neutrality of the article can be can be contested. Learncontribute (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Or at any rate no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  09:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LearningRx[edit]

LearningRx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. One mention on NY Times article but that article covers the industry as a whole, not specifically LearningRx. Article is an ad. CerealKillerYum (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 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 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The New York Times article [1] is more than a mention. I don't think the article is too promotional either, it is much more restrained than many co. pages. Vrac (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: LearningRx Corporate would like to comment on the claim of "no notability," among other claims, made regarding the LearningRx Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines [2], the LearningRx article does, in fact, meet all criteria for notability. Here are Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and how the LearningRx entry and source material stack up:

1. Significant coverage: Wikipedia states, “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.” Despite a claim that LearningRx received “one mention” in the NY Times article [3], the fact is that 27 of the article’s 47 paragraphs discuss LearningRx.
2. Reliable: Wikipedia states, “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” The NY Times meets this criterion. The article in question was written by Dan Hurley [4], a science journalist who writes for the Washington Post, Neurology Today, NY Times, Wired, Discover, Psychology Today, and presents a neutral, balanced look at brain training. The article examines or mentions four brain training companies and quotes experts with opposing views on the value of brain training. It in fact includes negative statements about LearningRx.
3. Secondary sources: The NY Times article clearly meets this criterion. Wikipedia also states, “There is no fixed number of sources required,” adding that multiple sources are generally expected. We’d like to point out that this is a relatively young Wikipedia article. Other source material does exist (for example, the company was also referenced in the 2005 issue of Entrepreneur magazine at [5]) and it is likely that, in time, these sources will be added to this article by others contributing to Wikipedia.
4. Independent of the subject: The author of the NY Times article has no affiliation or connection with LearningRx. He is an award-winning science journalist and author of numerous books, one of which is on the brain training industry.
5. Presumed: The LearningRx article does not violate What Wikipedia is not [6] and, in fact, meets all criteria for an assumption of inclusion in Wikipedia.

It should also be noted that LearningRx has not created nor edited this Wikipedia Entry. At this point we are not aware of any LearningRx involvement in the Wikipedia entry at all. As far as we can tell, none of Wikipedia’s 14 “Reasons for Deletion” apply to the LearningRx article. In summary, we can see no grounds for deletion and can’t identify why this article was nominated for deletion to begin with. learningrx 16:53, 16 December 2014 (MST)

  • Comment (@learningrx et al.) - The New York Times piece is a good ref. Certainly more than just a mention. However, the specific guideline that applies is WP:CORPDEPTH which includes the line "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I would extend that to say that two sources is likewise rarely sufficient. Aside from the Entrepreneur piece linked above I'm seeing largely local stories and PR-based pieces, but as of yet not more than that. I'm leaning keep as it is, but another good one would make it easier. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:21, 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, Mr.Z-man 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Comments above from learningrx , aside from WP:COI issues, misconstrue the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I commend the remarks of editor Rhododendrites above. --Bejnar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, there is some confusion about whether the article is about the technique or the company. The company itself gets plenty of bad reviews (just type "learningrx reviews" into Google), but so far has no Better Business Bureau complaints. The technique, which this article is about and what the NYT article is about, is neither new nor unique, so there isn't anything particularly notable about the technique, that I can find. So we either have to go with corporate notability, which hasn't been shown here (e.g. articles in business journals), or the method, and neither is notable. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has a long enough history and is noted in various sources for at least over a decade. The article definitely could use some improvement but it's as notable as other brain training programs that have their own entries..--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide links for the various sources over a decade? Arguments that other stuff exists are typically discounted at AfD discussions, and lack of sources seems to be what this hinges on. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was the franchise was founded over ten years and has branches all over America which gives a solid case for an entry on wikipedia. --Taeyebaar (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Longevity and geographic coverage are not basis, of themselves, of notability. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the "keep" !votes is from the company itself. I assume that "keep" is not to be considered in the decision? Perhaps it should be changed to "comment." LaMona (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am pretty skeptical about the claims of this company, but based on policy, I think we should keep it. First, the New York Times article is about LearninRX and compares it to the other three companies in this area: Lumosity, Cogmed, Posit Science. Second, there is an in-depth article on the start of the company in an article [7] via HighBeam from the Star Tribune. Third, there is evidence that this topic and also company is under scientific scrutiny [8]. So, I'm inclined to conclude that it does meet WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hurley, Dan (2012-11-04). "The Brain Trainers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.

      “We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”

    2. Lima, Christina (2006-11-30). "LearningRx offers help to struggling students". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.

      Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.

    3. Miranda, Maricella (2010-06-27). "New option for struggling students - Program uses drills instead of tutoring to 'train' the brain". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.

      The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.

      Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.

      But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.

      Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.

    4. "Program designed to make learning easier". Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2009-02-21. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

      The article notes:

      LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.

      ...

      Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.

      ...

      The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:00, 31 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 Mark Zuckerberg#Personal life . (non-admin closure) ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Priscilla Chan (Zuckerberg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. She is represented here as being notable for being Mark Zuckerberg's wife. There is no indication why there needs to be a standalone article if that's all we are doing is describing her profession and her marriage. NW (Talk) 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created on 23 December 2014; this article space had no hits (zero) for the previous 180 days, according to http://stats.grok.se/, but that may be because of its nonintuitive title. Nonetheless, I agree that there is no basis for the article. --Bejnar (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again - Still not notable enough for a stand alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Mark Zuckerberg. Redirects are cheap and she may well become notable in the future. I copy edited a bit and corrected some errors about her education. She was a Harvard undergrad, and attended UCSF medical school. The article previously said she was a graduate of Harvard Medical School, which is clearly false. She lived in California during those years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this title, because it's a very implausible and problematic title (at least the disambig aspect). I agree that other similar titles should be redirected but not this one. The page can be moved away first to preserve attribution if necessary. Note that the previous two AfDs on her were closed as delete, not redirect, as well. ansh666 02:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg. She's in that article, but not notable on her own. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg for obvious reasons; non-notable in her own right. Known publicly solely as Mark's wife.
AND SALT!! Quis separabit? 19:40, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Kapoor[edit]

Kanika Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references do not provide independent evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are actually many reliable sources about this person ([9][10][11][12] etc.) to establish the notability. The problem with this article is the behavior of user Kapoork. He/she is blanking the whole sections of the article, adding unsourced personal information [13], repeatedly removing the content from the article because he/she "does not like it" [14][15][16], and attacking other editors [17]. This editor might be Kanika Kapoor herself, but may also be her fan. The user is reported to the ANI: WP:ANI#User:Kapoork. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided above. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since its now edited with references to establish notability. Shaphiu (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been addressed with subsequent addition of references. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like enough reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability. Squinge (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to all the new sources that have been added to show notability. —Torchiest talkedits 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoodCrypto[edit]

GoodCrypto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks any notability under WP:GNG. No outside references are provided and an independent google search revealed no coverage of the subject. Learncontribute (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Non-notable company with non-notable software. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pollinators of Oregon[edit]

List of pollinators of Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the pollinators are able to restrict their activity to the state of Oregon. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mammals cross state lines. We have a list of mammals of every state.
This list is WP:OR unless we have more strictly defined criteria. —Gaff ταλκ 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be surprised if a secondary source mentioned this particular list. I'm also sure there are hundreds of insect species that are pollinators and are found in Oregon, as well as hummingbirds. I don't see the point of listing a few of them like this. Borock (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of a source for this list is a valid reason to delete. "The list would be long" or "the list is currently not complete" are not good reasons. I created the list, after consensus was reached at the CfD, but now agree it should be deleted unless/until a source can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. The nominator's rationale is without merit, as Gaff points out in the first comment; there is not and never has been a rule that we can only list things by place if they are exclusive to that place. Division by state lines makes sense because 1) plenty of reliable sources catalog flora and fauna by state; and 2) state-level agencies have a significant role in stewardship and policymaking over managed public lands, wild ecosystems, and agriculture, to all of which pollinators are specifically relevant and significant. My concern is with whether we have verified that these species actually act as pollinators within this state and are not merely found there (do pollinators act as such all throughout their range? what if they migrate and so aren't there during the right season?), and there may be also be little informational value if we can't do more than individually spot check the odd species here or there. WP:TNT might be a good approach unless we can find a more comprehensive source on this specific topic. postdlf (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I started this list without realizing that there really is not a source that defines inclusion/exclusion criteria. (My intentions were to do good!) "My" other list List of mammals of Oregon is developed off of such source(s). It is difficult to even say what qualifies as a "pollinator" since some things are pollinated by wind or by accident when some animal bumps into them. So yes, delete it, but do i for the right reason, so that a bad precedent is not set. As mentioned, even though state boundaries are human creations and somewhat arbitrary, they have very important implications in terms of natural resource management, conservation, regulations, etc. —Gaff ταλκ 21:00, 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 15:14, 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, Mr.Z-man 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the right reason, lack of coverage, as Gaff, the original creator, says. --Bejnar (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am getting out of the way on this to make it easier for the closing administrator. Consensus seems to be to delete. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew E. Unsworth[edit]

Andrew E. Unsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, he is one of a number of organists associated with the tabernacle. I could not find any recordings of note that feature him or any specific independent sources except for those closely associated with the church. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unsworth actually had a career outside of the LDS Church, both as a University Professor (not at a LDS Church school) and playing for the Cathedral of the Madeleine (Catholic). He also has been published by, described in publications by, given lectures to, and received recognition from professional organist organizations; some of these have now been included in the article. The only two publications listed on the article that have a "close associat[ion] with the church" (and thereby cannot reasonably be used to establish notability), are the ones with URLs on the respective lds.org & ldschurchnewsarchive.com domains; all of the rest are independent of direct influence by the LDS Church, and are not published by them. —Asterisk*Splat→ 23:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Unsworth was an Assistant Professor, which is considered to be an entry-level position; see Professors_in_the_United_States#Assistant_Professor. Karst (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems clear to me that this article passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. It has 11 distinctly different Reliable Sources, meeting the "Significant coverage" requirement, about this person. These sources cover both this musical career and his non-musical time as a Professor. I have no idea who he is, but it seems clear that the Newspapers do. It clearly meets WP:GNG.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is a church organist. The references are church newspapers and newsletters announcing functions at which he will play. There is the occasional bit of biographical information. There are no references in mainstream music sources. I cannot find notability here. LaMona (talk) 22:08, 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, NorthAmerica1000 03:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I keep seeing people say "The references are church newspapers and newsletters announcing functions". I see "The Salt Lake Tribune", "The Daily Herald", "Intermountain Catholic", "American Organist Magazine", "Meridian Magazine", "The Tracker", "Watertown Daily Times", "St. George News", and "Wayne & Garfield County INSIDER" listed as references. NONE of these are "LDS church newspapers" owned by the LDS Church. While the Church News is used, it isn't the "Only" one. To make the claim that only "LDS church newspapers" reference him is clearly false. In my opinion, this person has has "Significant coverage" and qualifies under passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:40, 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, Mr.Z-man 17:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to show notability. AlbinoFerret 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No credible policy based rationale offered by those calling for keep. SpinningSpark 18:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sally McDonough[edit]

Sally McDonough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP constructed from primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Unsourced BLP of a subject failing our General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – For notability. I think every top adviser in the White House is notable. The press secretary is probably the top adviser to the First Lady, so that passes. We have an article on Hannah August, Michelle Obama's press secretary, who has had a similar career. So I cleaned up the external links and now it has 2 references to White House archives. However, several paragraphs in the article are word-for-word copies of the second reference, so I tagged that. If those aren't cleaned up it will have to be stubbed as copyvio. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article appears to be autobiographical, having been created by Smcd5. The only cites are to White House announcements -- which, BTW, are not copyvio because of being Federal documents and thus in public domain. LaMona (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks, that's a good point. I removed the copypaste tag. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 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, Mr.Z-man 17:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I did a few minutes of searching, but cannot find sources supporting notability. Certainly she got cited as a spokesperson for Mrs. Bush, but there are no profiles of her. And not much to get from things like the link to her in India (cat): "In a statement to the press regarding India's death, Sally McDonough, a spokesperson for First Lady Laura Bush, noted that the family was "deeply saddened" by their cat's death." What we have here is more of a WP:LINKEDIN profile than a viable BLP.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to prove notability. Any advisor to a US president is notable. AlbinoFerret 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 18:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Ronde[edit]

Laurent Ronde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(in English) I suspect the article to be a hoax. In fact, a Google search produces no good result. It says on the article "His most famous creation was the Crown of Louis XV" or are Claude RONDÉ / Augustin DUFLOS who are behind [18].

(in French) Original text because I'm french : Je soupçonne l'article d'être un canular. En effet une recherche Google ne donne aucun résultat viable. On indique sur l'article « Son œuvre la plus connue est la couronne de Louis XV » or ce sont Claude RONDÉ/Augustin DUFLOS qui en sont à l'origine [19]. Gratus (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can say with almost 100% certainty that it is not a hoax. The creator was a well-respected and prolific editor and an admin, but his hey-day was in the days when verifiability was not so big a thing as today. A number of articles that he created in good faith have since been deleted. However, Google Books has references to Laurent Ronde, and the crown of Louis XV, including this one that was also turned up by Google Scholar. The French Wikipedia article on Louis XV's crown has him as "Claude Rondé", as does the site linked to by the nominator. Here is a reference to a Claude and a Laurent, and here is one to a Claude-Laurent (d. 1723). Some research is called for, possibly followed by a page move. Scolaire (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I didn't found theses references when I create this page. Indeed, I havent got same results when I open thes Google Book page in french and with google translate. --Gratus (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is another source, which says that Laurent Ronde was succeeded by his son Claude, who made the famous crown for the coronation of Lewis [sic] XV. And another one that says Claude. I am beginning to lean towards Move. At the very least, it should have the accented "e". Scolaire (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family life in literature[edit]

Family life in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A thematic list of works that is undefined and is not a prominent literary concern, thus development of it would be WP:OR. It is not an article that receives much attention see stats.grok.se, and could potentially include just almost every novel or other piece of literature ever created and could be subdivided to include almost any other genre, since the family is a core unit within which society functions. I would recommend deletion from both a Wikipedia perspective, and as someone familiar with literary criticism. The scope of this type of list, would be better suited with expansion of articles like Family saga or Family drama which both have more established definitions in conversations and treat the "family" as a topic. As both a Wikipedian and a literary scholar, I have to highly recommend the deletion of this, at current, arbitrary list, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—There exists a reasonable number of nonfiction works on family life in literature, and if that topic was found to be notable then the list might be reconstituted along those lines. As it stands now, however, the list of literary titles that do not involve families is likely to be much smaller than those that do. Without some WP:RS to provide focus, deletion is the best option here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be rescoped and title in another way then, as in "Bibliography of scholarship about family life". But none of the constituant items right now are non-fiction, Sadads (talk) 16:33, 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, NorthAmerica1000 16:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Wilson[edit]

Juice Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very interesting individual but none of the material appears to be referenced. And while his travels appear interesting, his contribution to any significant tours, recordings or broadcasts are lacking. Thus fails WP:MUSIC Karst (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Keep. The article already lists an Allmusic entry as a reference, and Wilson also has entries in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music (4th edition, ed. Colin Larkin) and The New Grove Encyclopedia of Jazz (2nd edition, ed. Barry Kernfeld). The latter reference includes further reading from Chilton's Who's Who of Jazz and Fable Bulletin. If he's considered important enough to be listed in other encyclopedias, I see no reason why he shouldn't be included in this one. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands the article has one source, which is not sufficient. Also, crucially, the Allmusic entry lists a number of songs and not albums released by the artist. It certainly would be useful to include the above additional references, but what the article really needs is some indication of his notability? Has he been part of an important performance, involved in a record that charted or co-written a notable song? Check WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the touring and recording that Wilson did as a sideman that made him famous occurred in the 1920s and '30s, before there were albums. It makes sense that AMG would list only songs. Probably the most illustrious thing on this resume is recording with and touring Europe with Noble Sissle; he was part of an ensemble that was crucial to extending jazz's popularity on that continent. Ultimately, though, for a jazz musician, to be notable is to play (verifiably) with many other important musicians; it's what gets you into encyclopedias like those I have listed (which satisfy at minimum WP:MUSIC bullet 1, and/or the GNG). And the article gives sufficient indication of that, though of course I welcome attempts at expansion, and you give some areas where further work would be helpful. These are not, however, motivators for deletion, but rather for improvement. Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I tend to see an authored Allmusic biography as sufficient, and in this case the subject has one by Eugene Chadbourne. As well as that and the above, the subject is described in "Essential Jazz Records: Volume 1: Ragtime to Swing" by "CF" (Charles Fox?) as "certainly one of the finest jazz soloists on that instrument" (the violin) [20]. AllyD (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That would be a good reference to add, although it would be interesting to see what the author bases his opinion on?. Karst (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chubbles and AllyD. Sufficient evidence of notability is present. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7th Bengaluru International Film Festival 2014[edit]

7th Bengaluru International Film Festival 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE information, not an encyclopedia article. —Swpbtalk 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it This article has quite a lot of references and is an encyclopedic entry. It should be enhanced, not deleted. Please allow editors to add more information instead of marking it for deletion. --Psubhashish (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it The article is meant to help document the biggest international film festival happening in my city Bengaluru and all the movies screened from all over the world. This article also helps us to find the missing wiki pages for internationally acclaimed movies and their respective directors pages. Also note that the movies that gets screened have importance based on the subject, country, language, culture, heritage and more. Bengaluru Film Festival's seventh edition also focuses on Gender Violence[1]. Many times, we never get to find such movies having a reference page on wikipedia and I find this as an opportunity to build informative pages as and when I find more time to do some research. Similarly, many other wikipedians might drop by and contribute as well. I will continue to try making this article more useful for wiki than just leaving it here as a list of movies. My another concern is that the international film festival websites get revamped every year and we never get to find the data related to movies screened in coming years and its a big loss as we loose some historic information about the movies screened here in Bengaluru. This page even addresses the need to retain such data. Hope I have tried my best to collate all the need for the article. Please guide me what else I could to better to improve this article instead of just nominating the page for deletion. Omshivaprakash (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Bengaluru-Film-Festival-is-Back/2014/11/20/article2531743.ece
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:27, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL): Bangalore International Film Festival
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Swierad[edit]

Marek Swierad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) of this terribly formatted article (Wikipedia is not a CV host...) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (authors) requirement. I am not seeing any significant coverage in Polish sources. Pl wiki entry discussed at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:12:01:Marek Świerad, currently leaning to delete (self-published writer, no reviews or other independent sources). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This author has had only one item translated, and it looks like the only copy of that is in the Polish National Library (per Worldcat). So although the author has some impact in Poland and Polish, he hasn't notability for English-language readers. Note that nothing turns up in Library of Congress nor Harvard libraries, which do collect in a wide number of languages. LaMona (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LaMona: Please note that language argument is invalid when it comes to notability. We don't prioritize English over Polish, whether it's sources or regional notability. In other words, we don't care if someone is notable in England or Poland, if you are notable in one place - even if it can verified only with non-English sources - it's perfectly acceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we do allow non-English resources as references, it makes little sense to include in the @en WP every entry from every other WP, nor to include all @en entries in every other WP. Each WP has its own rules and culture for inclusion, and @en WP is not a de facto aggregation of all. Notability in this WP is still notability. And notability requires reliable sources, such as book reviews, articles in mainstream newspapers, etc. This article doesn't have that. Pointing out that the author has not been translated and is not carried in major English-speaking libraries is a statement about notability, not about language. Many authors who write in non-English languages are visibly present in our libraries, bookstores, and review sources. LaMona (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LaMona: While I agree that translations are an indicator of notability, lack of translations is not an indicator of a lack of notability. There's no policy or guideline to support the statement that " it makes little sense to include in the @en WP every entry from every other WP, nor to include all @en entries in every other WP", except for the fact that some Wikipedias have different notability requirements, and thus some articles that are allowed to stay in one Wikipedia may be deleted from another one which has stricter requirements. But there are plenty of notable, let's say, Polish authors with no translations to English that are nonetheless highly notable. Ex. Andrzej Pilipiuk, whose works, as far as I know, have not been translated into any foreign language. Would you argue this means he shouldn't have an article on en wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the Andrzej Pilipiuk article is pretty weak - only two references, and most of the article is a bibliography, which is something we try to avoid. I realize that the @en WP is the one that is most noticed and possibly most valued for international attention, but it really isn't intended, IMO, to include all of the information from all of the language WPs in existence. As I said before, one still has to meet notability requirements of @en WP, and I don't think that Marek Swierad meets this criterion. Ref. #1 is merely a listing in a library catalog; 2&3, although I can't read them, are compilations of short paragraphs on different topics, so if he is one of the topics, it's a brief mention. (And I can't find him listed in the page at #2). #5 is about someone else, and is a WP article, which are not considered reliable sources. #4 seems to be by him, not about him (after running a section through translate - if that's not the case pls provide a translation of the relevant portion). So we're still looking for significant, reliable sources. And note that it is up to the article to prove notability, not for us to prove lack of. LaMona (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:05, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:46, 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 merge to Bible translations into the languages of Africa. NorthAmerica1000 02:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malangano Ga Sambano[edit]

Malangano Ga Sambano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe we have criteria for the notability of bible translations. This translation is for a rare language in Africa; no references or notes are given to establish notability of the publication so it fails to meet WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Bible translations into the languages of Africa, which is a list by language and has no entry for this one. PamD 16:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. The material in this article is only a single sentence, yet it is completely unreferenced. Is it worthwhile to merge unreferenced material? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:02, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per mikeblas - unless someone will find some detail on the circumstances of the translation or other useful material to make this more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Flat Out[edit]

Exercise Flat Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happen all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is unclear from the nomination what exactly makes a military exercise non-notable. Per WP:GNG, notability is satisfied if there are sources covering the subject, which is evident from the source cited in the article. Further coverage of Exercise Flat Out can also be found here and in the book The Story of the Pakistan Air Force, 1988-1998: A Battle Against Odds (2000), A. Rashid Shaikh. Mar4d (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment having sources doesnt make it more notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (via del/sort WP:PAK) under the blanket title Pakistani military exercises with all other such articles (with others in summary if their own articles are kept); keep if the article is reasonably expanded above stub and atleast asserts in-depth notability and coverage during the time of this AFD. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:44, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not finding sufficient sources to indicate the term stands on its own. My sweep of world sources found nothing much, even an unfiltered search did not yield sufficient sources indicating notability; rather, it seems to have limited usage in the Pakistani military. The article's current and only source is a primary source, when a few relevant secondary sources are needed to establish notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 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 delete. Overall, I have assessed and read the references and believe they do not support the keep rationales, which are therefore given lower weight. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise High Mark[edit]

Exercise High Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happen all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is satisfied if there are sufficient sources for the subject, which are clearly available for this military exercise. Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sources are not an indication of being notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (via del/sort WP:PAK) Recurring major exercise with recurring coverage, satisfies GNG. Something like Red Flag exercise. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more, and more comprehensive sources (two of three cites are deadlinks, the extant one is hardly comprehensive) are given to demonstrate notability (specifically the GNG) GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 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, NorthAmerica1000 11:44, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the references just show a local interest, as before military do hundreds of excercises all the time, very rarely notable like this one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Iconcur with Milborne. Excercise are run of the mill, unencyclopaedic, (unless somethinghappens because of one that is notable in it's own right), and non-notable.WP:GNG, notnews, etc.etc.--Petebutt (talk) 18:45, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica1000 03:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block & DeCorso[edit]

Block & DeCorso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flagged as an advert for four years. Sources appear to be press releases, brief mentions, broken links, and other low-quality material. No specific claim to notability and the article does not contain any significant volume of encyclopedic material. CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete refs 1, 3, 5, 6 are only mentions. 4 is a dead link. 2 is participation by one partner in a discussion in an industry magazine. Nothing that would make the company notable. LaMona (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:40, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travers Collins & Company[edit]

Travers Collins & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At best, the company does not pass WP:ORG, because the available sources are news blurbs[21] and awards that do not pass ORGDEPTH. At worst, it is a highly mis-representative article about a company whose employees left to start their own firm, resulting in a lawsuit.[22] (This may explain the conflict between the 26 employees alleged in the current article and the 5 stated in O'Dwyer's[23]). Notability does not correspond to size exactly, but I would think we would need a pretty strong claim for a 5 or 26 person PR firm to be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:41, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Or perhaps "Keep". (Reversed from my first "vote"ing) It seems notable to me, though I am not associated with the PR industry and don't have a greatly informed perspective. The mentions of awards seems to establish notability, IMO, despite my having seen it asserted in another PR firm AFD or two that such awards are routine. For what it's worth, this businessweek.com source asserts that the firm was acquired by The Martin Group, LLC in June 2014. I see no Martin Group (currently a red-link) article in Wikipedia yet. Presumably the Martin Group is bigger and perhaps more clearly individually notable, so one resolution could be to redirect this article to a new article on Martin Group. I could possibly start such an article at Draft:The Martin Group, say, especially if anyone else is interested in helping. Also broader searching on the following would be relevant:
--doncram 22:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This June 30, 2014 article in the Buffalo News, about the acquisition, reports The Martin Group then had 38 employees and Travers Collins was then down to about 15 employees, of which 5 were PR professionals who were going to be kept by The Martin Group (explaining/consistent with the O'Dwyer source that nominator mentioned), and one founder of Travis Collins was retiring and the other was going to stay as a consultant for a while. Although the article could be viewed as a kind of obituary on Travers Collins, it actually is a reliable good source with considerably more about the Travers Collins firm, and kinda supports keeping the article, whether or not Travers Collins as a name was then completely ended (not clear to me whether the name continues or not). I think Redirecting to new article on the Martin Group is best, leaving edit history at the redirect. --doncram 22:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, i've tried to draft an article at Draft:The Martin Group, intended to serve as a redirect target, and which includes some info and sources copy-pasted from the Travers Collins & Company article. --doncram 23:40, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large Animal Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Large Animal Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:CORP. Entirely non notable online game company. All sources are primary or non reliable, such as Facebook, etc. Promotional, but not to the point of being eligible for CSD G11. Article was deleted once at AfD for notability, but given both that the original AfD was eight years ago and that this current incarnation has existed since 2007, I feel CSD G4 is inappropriate as well. Safiel (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It looks like there was a play by the same name by Steve Yockey, so there will be some false positives for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It looks like there were some reviews for their Color Zen game and its spinoff Color Zen Kids, enough to where they have a Metacritic score for each one. There are some articles here and there like this article and this one, but by large most of the focus is on Color Zen. There's just enough here to where I'd argue for a weak keep as an overall article about the company as opposed to just creating an article for the game Color Zen itself, although I do want to note that I don't think that there should be a separate article for the game. This is kind of a "one or the other" type of situation. I also want to note that I deleted a lot of information on the article that was fairly promotional and looked like it'd probably be copyvio from one place or another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:37, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 23:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highervisibility[edit]

Highervisibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unimportant company. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link-Assistant.Com[edit]

Link-Assistant.Com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self referencing. No notability. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. The article tries to create notability for their product but comes off as an ad. Also, these rankings for their products come from non-notable sources. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly all Google hits are for press releases. No WP:RS establish notability as per WP:GNG and then it can't be a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - it is true that most of the google hits are PR pieces, but these have not been used to flood the article with self-citations. Search Engine Journal is the source of most of the supporting citations, a source which is edited though I don't know to what extent; I've not revised the 'cite web' templates to 'cite news' as a result. I would call Search Engine Journal a weak but sufficient 3rd party source. HighBeam does not have anything on the company, which I found unusual, but not unprecedented. The article does need to be trimmed and toned. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MATTE Projects[edit]

MATTE Projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an advertisement, and most of the references read like press releases. No indication of notability, except by association. Of note, this article had previously been deleted through PROD in October 2013, but was de-PRODded recently at the request of OliverZD, a new user whose initial username was User:MATTE Projects. Risker (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I am currently in the process of editing this page and will make sure to find more creditable sources. The change in username was made because it there was a change in administrator and the previous name did not comply with Wikipedia's terms. OliverZD (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OliverZD, what do you mean by "there was a change in administrator"? Risker (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This company (less than four years old) comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria at WP:ORG. This is a blatant spamvert with all the hallmarks of a paid-for "article", i.e. the usual slew of perfectly-formatted non-references which sprang fully formed, complete with infobox, from a "new" editor on their 13th edit. There is no evidence whatsoever of independent in-depth coverage of the company (or its productions). I have found nothing better than what is already in the article, i.e. PR based sources—quite obvious from their virtually identical (buzz)wording—and a review of their "Full Moon Festival" in a blog. Note that the reference cited as Madden, Josh. "MATTE PROJECTS". Nylon Magazine is not by him. He merely posted it. It's by Nick Bloom-Scaglione one of whose clients is the "Full Moon Festival" [24]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have access to edit this page, if it is deleted am I still able to create another MATTE Projects page? Also, would you mind sending the guidelines for articles so I can make sure a new page isn't deleted? Thanks so much! OliverZD (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left guidance on your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OliverZD, I don't see any technical reason why you may "no longer have access to edit this page"; you're not blocked, and the page is not protected from editing. What happens if you go to the page and click the "Edit" button at the top? Risker (talk) 18:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. All the sources are not independent, third-party sources, so the company's notability is also questionable. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The source mentioned by Margin1522 is [25], for future reference.  Sandstein  09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glass pollution[edit]

Glass pollution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication on how glass pollution is inherently notable, and since no other articles link to it, it doesn't seem like it is notable. Chipka (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:31, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It does have a good cite, which should be added to Glass recycling. The remainder is an unsourced essay. I think the author should work on improving Glass recycling. (Most of the hits I found for "glass pollution" were about pollution of glass by foreign materials during manufacture.) – Margin1522 (talk) 19:38, 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 Withdrawn. Nominator withdraws nomination and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Alianza Hispana[edit]

AfDs for this article:
La Alianza Hispana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is cited entirely by the organization's own records. Google Books and Proquest produce sources with only passing mentions of the subject. No indication that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - Notability established by Doncram. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If you check the previous deletion discussion, you'll see that I was the campus ambassador for the class that developed this article. (Or rather, the class in which the student developing this article was enrolled.) The article has many flaws, and I'd hoped that they would be addressed before the end of the semester, and I agree that as written I agree it doesn't show notability. That said, I think a good article with proper secondary sourcing is possible for this topic, but in all honesty I don't believe the student authors are going to do more work on this article any time soon. I could be convinced that deletion is the right move here, though I worry that would rule out a better future article being written by other editors. AmandaRR123 (talk) 19:53, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage in Boston Globe and other sources. From a search on a non-free newspapers database, i find: "FOR HISPANICS, 20 YEARS OF HELP FROM LA ALIANZA", by Hernandez, Efrain. Boston Globe[Boston, Mass] 09 June 1990: p.22. A 989 word article all about the organization and its accomplishments. Suffices, on its own, IMO. Other articles with substantial coverage include:
    • "La Alianza Hispana graduates feted". Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 31 Jan 1993: p13. About the organization's General Equivalency Diploma program for youth having low literacy skills.
    • "Allies for La Alianza" Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 27 June 1994: p10. Article starts with "La Alianza Hispana, Boston's best-known human service agency under Latino control, is starting to heal after a serious self-inflicted wound." It describes the organization's history and problems and supports recent board changes and so on. It seems the organization lost its $100,000 annual funding for the GED program, and its caseworkers failed to address one prominent tragedy promptly, but there was room for hope, blah blah blah. This is major coverage.
    • There are 153 in the major newspapers database on the exact string "La Alianza Hispana"; the above 3 articles are early hits among those and suffice already to establish notability, IMO.
--doncram 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Clucking Holidays[edit]

Happy Clucking Holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable novelty album. Artist has no page (and {{db-album}} was denied). Sources such as this and this simply mention it but don't give it any substantial coverage. Others are down. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:30, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:33, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur)[edit]

Paul Campbell (American entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. The article has 19 sources, but the out of 6 I checked, 3 don't mention the subject, two do in passing, and one seems to have a broken link. The article is primarily based on sources discussion companies and business enterprises the subject was involved in, and is not even focused much on the subject in the body. It seems like a spam piece, through whether for the subject, product or a company, I am not sure. Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to pass any relevant notability requirements. PS. This article is shares almost all of the content with Sebastian Solano (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Solano) and Patryk Tracz (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patryk Tracz)... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey, page maker here. I think merging them all to a page for "The Committee" would be a good option (maybe on the life in color page), using the same guideline used for bandmembers; I went ahead and made three new separate pages (similar to the original Lukasz Tracz one), just because I didn't predict the research would be so similar, but except Solano they turned out almost all the same. I do think all 4 independently pass the GNG for company founders (per if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), so I wouldn't agree with deleting any info overall. Earflaps (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:28, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:28, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurukul[edit]

List of Gurukul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To begin with this list is largely unsourced and a collection of redlinks. This list as described in the introduction is suppose to be a list of schools "that aim to imbibe the essence of Indian cultural heritage through traditional learning". Thus it is subjected to personal POV, as the categorization scheme is not well defined. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 09:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The premise of the list is so open-ended as to amount to an indiscriminate list of links. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:28, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Von Haden[edit]

Bob Von Haden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city with a population of 65K, which is not large enough to confer notability on a city councillor under WP:NPOL. Further, the article focuses on completely generic and pretty WP:ROUTINE accomplishments like voting for a community pool and against a jail, and is nowhere near being substantive enough to make him uniquely notable among the thousands of other city councillors across the United States who voted for community pools and against jails without qualifying for Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete City council members in cities this size are no where near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not clearing the WP:POLITICIAN high bar. One who is elected to the city council of a major metropolis clears the bar, Eau Claire doesn't meet the standard. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 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 delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Cummins[edit]

Trish Cummins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only secondary coverage is in local, run-of-the-mill sources, nothing that denotes special mention. No claims of importance outside the school board stuff, which doesn't meet any prong of WP:BIO. Couldn't find anything else on her to get her past the general notability guideline. czar ⨹ 04:40, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails the WP:POLITICIAN high bar, not having been elected to a mayorship or to the city council of a metropolis. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 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 delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vue[edit]

Charles Vue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a representative on a local school board. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No outstanding claim to notability or anything that meets any prong of WP:BIO. Additionally, no external secondary coverage outside of the local papers on Google News (doesn't pass the general notability guideline). czar ⨹ 04:36, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:26, 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 03:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Kincaid[edit]

Kerry Kincaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a city councillor in a non-metropolitan city. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — the lowest level of office that entitles a person to an article is the state legislature — and the referencing here is extremely reliant on primary and user-generated sources, so WP:GNG isn't passed either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, I guess there's nothing especially notable about this article. Local politician, sources, and issues. Most of the links are dead. The ones that aren't are from the local TV station about minor local issues. I don't think it's all that urgent to delete articles like this, but in principle having non-verifiable information is not a good thing. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Puffy, fluffy biography of an essentially run of the mill local politician. Fails the high bar we set for such, which is by consensus more or less the following: election to a mayoralty of a significant city or election to the city council of a metropolis. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica1000 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Camilleri[edit]

Ricky Camilleri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a media personality, written in the style of a promopuff rather than an encyclopedia article and relying entirely on primary sources with not even the first hint of the reliable source coverage that it takes to pass any of Wikipedia's notability rules. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a good article can be written and sourced, but this as written is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:23, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:25, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (vent) @ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRC Market Research[edit]

TRC Market Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Market research company without any credible claim to notability. All sources are either primary (including press releases reproduced on third-party websites) or else simply listings on sites like businesweek.com, which is trivial coverage. bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:22, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:23, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makovsky Integrated Communications[edit]

Makovsky Integrated Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically a directory entry for a non-notable firm. It is possible that the person might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:17, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:21, 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. Nobody opposes deletion.  Sandstein  09:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashing the Ideavirus[edit]

Unleashing the Ideavirus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't verify its claim to notability, i.e. being the most downloaded e-book of all time. Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hard one. I'm sure that this book has been very popular, but I can't find reviews in the places where serious business books get reviews. I also don't know any way to prove his Amazon best seller statement (#4) since there isn't, AFAIK, an archive of Amazon rankings. (Nor information on the price of the ebook at the time, and many authors "sell" their ebooks for $0-$1 to improve its position in the ranking.) This book did not make the NYTimes bestseller list, and was barely mentioned in that newspaper. I can't find any listings in WSJ. He does nothing to substantiate his claim that this is the most downloaded book in history, so there's no way to check that since he would be referring to stats on his web page. As the person who has most single-handedly encouraged the use of hype in marketing, it's very hard to accept his claims without proof. Note: There are other Godin books with pages on WP and their references are as weak as this one. LaMona (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:15, 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, NorthAmerica1000 15:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaouki Chamoun[edit]

Chaouki Chamoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria Boleyn (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: (non-admin action)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's kind of hard to verify because most of the sources are in Arabic, but he seems to be a big-name, well established artist in the Middle East. That's clear from this version of the article. Most of it was deleted as unsourced. It could have also been deleted as copyvio from the Bio at his website. But he is notable. President of the Lebannon artists association, set a record for highest price for a painting by living Lebannese artist at Christie’s in London. There is a big retrospective book on him, published in London: The Art and Life of Chaouki Chamoun. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the source, I've added it to the article. I'm not convinced it's a reliable source though, as reads in a promotional manner. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, definitely not, it's a publisher's blurb. I did add the one review of the book that I was able to find in English. I think just the fact that he was selected as the subject of a monograph shows that he is considered to be one of more important artists in Lebanon. Also I added a link to his 2013 show at the Beirut Exhibition Center, which is apparently one of the two big exhibition spaces for contemporary art in the city. It was quite a large show, as mentioned in the book review. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:20, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a feature length piece on him in The Daily Star "Chamoun looks West, then East" giving many details that could be used in the article. Many other news and magazine sources, while not discussing in depth, indicate that they think he is important [26], (Executive Magazine), [27] (South China Morning Post), [28] (Wall Street Journal). He is clearly locally notable in Lebanon, and seems to have made enough of an impression outside Lebanon to be considered to have worldwide notability. SpinningSpark 19:23, 31 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 ⨹ 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Vowel[edit]

Chelsea Vowel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, relying entirely on self-written primary "sources" which cannot confer notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if proper reliable sources can be added, but a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of their own social networking presence if independent coverage isn't there to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A search for an in-depth profile didn't find anything. Unless we quote her blog and articles directly I don't think we can add much to her short Huffington Post biographical note. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:47, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Need reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Hlevy2 (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. The Huff Post thing alone is insufficient to sway things. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources are terrible, unlikely to be notable. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage in third party sources. Fails our notability threshold. Jim Carter 09:49, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Senior League (rugby union)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leinster Senior League (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unresolved notability for 6 years. Google brings up dependent websites and passing mentions. Last discussion ended in no consensus because of little participation. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this has been an important comprtition in Irish rugby prior ot the formation of the All-Ireland league Pmunited (talk) 14:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:43, 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. I have an aversion to deleting anything 150 years old, whatever it is, but sadly this has to go...unless they can be shown to have done something notable like they insured the Titanic or invented cat insurance. SpinningSpark 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Hudson Insurance Agency, Inc.[edit]

Bell & Hudson Insurance Agency, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small business that has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a reference to the article today and I'm working on finding microfiche newspaper articles from the early part of the 20th century. I'm asking for more time to find these records to support notability for this 150 year-old Massachusetts company.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely not notable; just another company. Whoisjohngalt added a reference (thanks), but that only brings them to 4, none of significance. Also, the article was created by an editor, Psingleton - contributions who seems to be adding a number of articles for small or not terribly significant companies. I'm a bit concerned about COI here. LaMona (talk) 02:46, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be an ordinary, local small business. I'm not seeing anything counting towards GNG or indicating corporate significance in a quick Google dance... Carrite (talk) 19:06, 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 merge to Ó hUiginn. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilla Colum Ó hUiginn[edit]

Gilla Colum Ó hUiginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ó hUiginn, unless there is more suitable target. Assuming the nominator's rational is valid (I wouldn't know, but no one has disagreed for a week so far), a name appearing in historical reference works should redirect somewhere. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:01, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:23, 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 already deleted. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai- Television actor Rushiraj Pawar during the launch of Life OK new serial Mahakumbh in Mumbai, on Dec 5, 2014.jpeg[edit]

Mumbai- Television actor Rushiraj Pawar during the launch of Life OK new serial Mahakumbh in Mumbai, on Dec 5, 2014.jpeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This picture is not needed anymore. Filled with love (talk) 14:12, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permeability Derivation based on Capillary Tube Model[edit]

Permeability Derivation based on Capillary Tube Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent original research with no context and no references. It might be a candidate for Wikibooks, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Kolbasz (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only are there no references, there isn't even any text. The article consists entirely of 3 formulas. LaMona (talk) 23:11, 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) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No article, no notability, no question. PianoDan (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No references, no assertion of notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:16, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Monaco[edit]

Stephen Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having 46 citations, I have not found any that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Sources include press releases, brief mentions/quotes as a spokesperson, primary sources and misc low quality cites. CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly promotional and no in-depth sources that I can find. There are mentions in business articles, but none of the articles are about him. Two of the sources that I looked at (the Infoworld ones) did not have his name, but a similar name ("Richard Monaco") -- the links are to searches that find a nearest match. #23 does not mention him. Lots of blog posts and other non-RS sources listed. Created and heavily edited by an SPA in 2011, plus evidence of SPA's more recent. WP:PROMO LaMona (talk) 23:22, 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) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems highly promotional. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 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 redirect to ACC Championship. There is no consensus for deleting ACC Championship, if it is still desired to delete it, a separate debate for that article would achieve a clearer consensus. SpinningSpark 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ACC Championship[edit]

2014 ACC Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
ACC Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-existant tournament that never took place (should have started today, according to the article). Fails WP:N and also WP:V. I've also added the parent article of ACC Championship for the same rationale. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not notable in its non-existence.Vrac (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said not notable in its not covered non-existence. Vrac (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, I guess Samwalton9 and Northamerica1000 are happy with having events that never took place on WP. I hope you've asked Santa for a nice fence to sit on over the holiday period. And see this which is along the same lines and heading for delete. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of your nomination is flawed, stating it is unverifiable. See [29]. Events that didn't occur can be notable if they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The delete !vote beneath the nomination seems to assume non-notability since the event didn't occur, but doesn't state anything about sources, or lack thereof, about the topic. NorthAmerica1000 14:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't receive significant coverage. Add a spine to that present list for you too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down Lugnuts. If you thought the article should have been deleted straight away we have prod and csd available, you opened a deletion discussion so that editors could discuss whether the article should be deleted. Given that only one person had responded I relisted the discussion for further debate because there was no harm in this article staying on Wikipedia for another week or two. My relisting is not a keep vote, but a notice that I do not feel that sufficient discussion has been allowed to take place such that I could close the discussion with a consensus. As NA1000 said, we have plenty of articles on subjects which never occurred, so sources maybe existing is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Let this week's discussion take place and see what happens. Sam Walton (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have proded it, but there are too many jobsworths who would just decline it. I look forward to someone else with no balls to relist it one week from today. Try and have a Merry Christmas. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs aren't typically relisted more than twice, a decision should be made after this week. I hope you have a good christmas too. Sam Walton (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2014 ACC Championship, and
  • Keep ACC Championship although there are a few decent hits for this online, I don't think that as an event that took place it is notable enough for an article. However, I think there is enough to save the parent article, at least for the time being, as the idea of the event remains notable, and there is always a chance (let me consult my crystal ball!!) that there will be a future tournament played. Harrias talk 10:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all relevant info to the ACC Championship page. The event seems notable enough to warrant a single page but not two covering the same information, Aerospeed (Talk) 14:54, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guaranteed to Disagree[edit]

Guaranteed to Disagree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. No reliable secondary sources. Per comments made by a new user when the PROD was removed, remember that while the band itself may be notable, notability is not WP:INHERITED. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Band is very notable they have quite the following there concerts are always packed. This EP has the significance of been there first music released if its not significant does that mean there other two albums are not one of which I might add made the UK number 1 on the alternative charts. I am sure there is plenty of information on the net that can be used for sources on this but I question if the person nominating this articles removal has had a look for any. Daniel298289 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't speak for the nom, but I have. There aren't any reliable sources that discuss the subject in significant detail. What I found was a handful--- and only a handful--- of hits where the album is mentioned in passing, on blogsites yet, and that doesn't cut it. The band may be notable, maybe, but we're not talking about the band here. Nha Trang Allons! 21:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found that the EP debuted on Billboard's Heatseeker albums chart at #38 and reentered at #46. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vishnuvardhan filmography.  Sandstein  09:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manini (1979 film)[edit]

Manini (1979 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, article does not assert notability. — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magavanism[edit]

Magavanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax religion. Zero Google results for the word "Magavanism", article was initially a copy of a chunk of the Zoroastrianism article with some words changed; it's now changed some more words but is using the same references, down to the page numbers. The one online reference given does not mention Magavanism at all. Possibly now beyond speedying as "obvious hoax", but still a hoax. McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:55, 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. The single "keep" opinion is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a good argument for an AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Coat of arms of the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 9, the merits of this speedily deleted article should be discussed here. Please see the review discussion for possible reasons for deletion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  12:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was one of three editors who consecutively declined this for speedy deletion before it was finally taken out on the fourth attempt. I'm not going to vote here, but would like to bring to the attention of the debate a few facts which led to my speedy decline. It is clearly a real thing, not just made up one day by an over-enthusiastic Donetsk partisan, it being covered on numerous sites. The symbolism and history is discussed in depth here and here. CBC think it notable enough to mention that stickers with the Donetsk coat of arms were placed over the Ukraine coat of arms on ballot boxes. This vexicology site sees fit to include it. Articles on individual coats of arms seem to be well established and accepted by the community as encyclopaedic topics. SpinningSpark 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A10 - the article adds nothing to what's already in Donetsk People's Republic. It also lacks any references. Bazj (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can be covered in the article about the republic. However, I note that an attempt of mine to add the former coat to the republic article was promptly reverted with "no soruce for this sketch crap", which, reluctantly, I have to accept because indeed I had not provided any soruce. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A10. If there's any reliably sourced content here, it belongs in the DPR article. Incidentally, RHaworth, I did notice that your addition was reverted with an extremely uncivil ES and was tempted to chide the IP hopper for his/her bad faith, but there's no point in trying to give a hopper a soruce. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep we have an article on the Coat of Arms of Nauru, I don't see why not create an article on the coat of arms of Donestk PR... they're may not be much info on the topic now, but more will be added as the situation in Eastern Europe normalises. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. Even the image of the coat of arms appears to be extracted from an unsourced image of a flag on commons. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upper State New York University USNYU[edit]

Upper State New York University USNYU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:RS that this university ever existed. Challenged sources removed by author (claims of accreditation). Court reference previously found to be a foreign source (previous creation attempts). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as Fake) - not exactly a hoax, but New York law requires licensing for the use of the word "university". Trump University was aborted for the same reason. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I declined the speedy delete as a blatant hoax because, although I suspected it was fake, it wasn't quite blatant enough for me to speedy delete it. Everymorning added this reference to the article. I don't blame them for adding it. I saw it too, but I suspect it's a fake press release despite the fact that it is "verified". Notice that the location of the school in the press release says Viet Nam. I found that kind of odd. Anyway, I'm glad Loriendrew nominated it for deletion so the community can evaluate whether it's real and, even if so, whether it's sufficiently notable to keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fake? So because the press release is from VIET NAM, it's fake? Furthermore, the school and location does not say it's in VIET NAM. It appears that the press release was created by someone from VIET NAM. Linkedin does have some people who are former students of this school https://www.linkedin.com/edu/alumni?name=Upper+State+New+York+University&trk=prof-edu-school-name
  • Comment Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabdkc123 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up The last time this article was created is was not found at MSA. Institutions no longer accredited by them are listed, so this school should be listed as a past member. I did notice that the statement was removed. Linkedin is by far not a reliable source. The bankruptcy court has no results on the university (the citation is to the southern district of NY's main page). Lastly the PRLog citation added states the school location is in VN, not that the PR is from there. It is also the only mention of this institution at the "log". No results at JSTORE, scholar, books, news (above search links). For a PhD granting school this place has no academic footprint.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that your personal opinion as to linkedin not being a reliable source, but my point was that the University had to have existed if former students listed this school on their resumes. Furthermore, you can't add a fake school on your resume as potential employers will check to confirm. Although there's not a lot of references, the article was built on information that was available. It's kind of hard to pull information from a defunct university. Please note that linkedin is a public website just like wikipedia. Millions of people rely on linked to look at resumes of potential employees. So I wouldn't say that it's not reliable.

Have a great day.

  • Delete: I prodded this, but am glad we have an AFD to settle the issue more finally, as there have been occasional attempts to get this article up for a few years now. Perhaps this organization did exist in some fashion, as a few linked in profiles reference it, which make me think this would have been a fly-by-night diploma mill. But there is no reliable sourcing to verify it at all. I posted on the school's alleged facebook alumni page [30] back in August after there was a prior attempt to create an article. I posted this completely made up comment, "Old Upper State! I remember playing ultimate frisbee on De Peyster Plaza, those were the days! And the jeers at the basketball games! Upper State Upper State Yes We Can! Columbia & Pace In the Garbage Can!!" When I noted that the page owner had "liked" my comment a few days ago, I also saw he had created this article. Sadly, Upper State needs to go in the garbage can.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find independent evidence of this school's having existed, and one of the references - to the Australian Dictionary of National Biography - does not include Bryce McDonald, the person supposedly referenced. If it did exist, it has not achieved notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Energy informatics[edit]

Energy informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not dictionary. Jim Carter 11:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this could be turned into a stub at least. Did you check out any sources on line?Bearian (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given that there are entire university research centers dedicated to this topic, it would seem to deserve an article, albeit a better one than this one. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A longstanding topic, although the term may be new. Before starting I said to myself that I would !vote Keep if there was a journal or conference. There is a Conference on Energy Informatics -- see ei2012 ei2014. Also this paper about the field. I think eventually it could become an article like Environmental informatics, which is more established. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:05, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

平安[edit]

平安 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:UE "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." Transliterating this page wouldn't make sense though, because it's disambiguating two different transliterations. In my view the page should be deleted unless someone has another solution for renaming it using the Latin alphabet. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 11:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following page which has the same issue: 北斗 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 11:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about redirecting 平安 to Ping'an (Chinese) and then cross hatnote dab or "See also" links between Ping'an and Heian (Japanese) (priority to Chinese because Japanese kanjis originate from Chinese characters)? And FYI Pyongan (Korean) also has the hanja 平安. No objection to deletion if things don't work out. 北斗, however, almost definitely redirect to Big Dipper (mentioned in section Names > Asian). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 11:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I agree with Hisashiyarouin's proposal above, and have already taken the liberty of creating a "See also" section on the Heian page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are non-Latin titles allowed even as redirects? T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 03:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure about that myself. But then I tested some basic words, and found that 中国 redirects to China and 日本 redirects to Japan. So I assume they are. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DABOTHERLANG appears to be a guideline for determining what kinds of foreign-language terms should included as entries in the disambiguation page, and unrelated to the merits of the disambiguation page as a whole. The pages Ping'an and Heian do exist as valid pages, so I don't see this as an issue. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, standard member of Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. WP:UE is about article titles, not about redirects or disambiguations, which are basically redirects with two targets. There isn't a good reason to delete this dab, and it will save time and confusion on readers' part to ask the question "do you mean Japanese or Chinese 平安?" only to people who actually searched for 平安 (rather than redirecting to a more complex dab.) Siuenti (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_15#Category:Disambiguation_pages_with_Chinese_character_titles Siuenti (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the underlying rationale expressed above for doing away with this page is that the title violates our policies on what kinds of titles are acceptable. However, I find Siuenti's reasoning sound: since this is a disambiguation page and not a full-fledged article, the title is not necessarily contravening anything. The old CfD discussion provides us with a past consensus and precedent for keeping these kinds of disambiguation pages. Here's how I see it: non-Latin redirects are generally accepted by the community if their language relates to the target—e.g. how 中国 redirects to China. So what happens when a non-Latin title would be acceptable as a redirect to multiple targets? If this were an alternative name in English, we'd definitely be creating a disambiguation page. If anything else, I see this as a WP:IAR situation. Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, my opinion would be that if a title would typically be acceptable as a redirect (as this one would), then it is also acceptable as a disambiguation page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. If there is no unambiguous transliteration, then retaining the original script is the logical solution. This is a matter of how the dab article should be titled, and not a reason for deletion, for which I see no convincing argument here. No objection to any redirect solution decided on by more knowledgeable editors.  Sandstein  09:13, 31 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 all. Deor (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Surge[edit]

New South Wales Surge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion prod was removed. Not a notable sports team. Relies on sources that are COI. Nothing independent. Speedy Climber (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:
Victoria Maidens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Queensland Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Australia Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adelaide Arsenal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Speedy Climber (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Almost all sources are from the league, certainly not independent ones.Jakejr (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I started to do my usual AfD homework, and then realized what the Legends Football League is: the re-branded Lingerie Football League started in the United States. If anyone can find three or four mainstream media sources with significant coverage for each of these teams and the games they have played, I would might be inclined to keep them -- but an American football team, in Australia, populated by women, playing in lingerie and football helmets and pads? That's a carnival sideshow that merits the strictest analysis under WP:ORG and WP:GNG with zero benefit of the doubt. It's not real sport; it's a pole-dancing minor league parody with helmets and lingerie jersey numbers. All kidding aside, delete the team articles, include a list of teams and their basic team data in the parent Legends Football League article, and call it a day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this "league" had zero impact in Australia, both in its original incarnation and its current one. A season was even cancelled due to lack of interest, if you want to see what a nonentity it is. Nothing in the way of independent or reliable coverage exists for any of these teams. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 4 Generations Challenge[edit]

The Sims 4 Generations Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page describes game strategy, a part of The Sims 4. Even if it was structured as a proper article, the topic by itself would not even be notable to warrant a page by itself. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete long, detailed how-to game guide, not encyclopedia material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one mention of this challenge. Sam Walton (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sam Walton's Kotaku source was the only one I could find, as well. I made a mention of it in the Sims 4 article, but it doesn't seem worthy of any more than that, unless someone can come up with more sources. At any rate, the article as is needs a serious overhaul if it's to be kept. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether a redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes, which contains the same information, should also be created is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon (unit)[edit]

Solomon (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory or dictionary for non-notable units of measure. — kikichugirl speak up! 08:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or possibly redirect to Wine bottle#sizes. No need for a separate article. I've added it to Solomon (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia contains extensive information about weights and measures and so it should, as this is standard encyclopedic content. Merger into wine bottle#sizes, as suggested above, seems a sensible alternative to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source is not sufficiently reliable to be used for novel claims that cannot be verified in other sources. The source appears to have no more than a single row in a table to justify the statements in this article, and there is no encyclopedic information available to make an article beyond a dictionary definition. This is part of a big issue; see my comment at DRN. All the pages should be considered together, rather than having fragmented discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wine bottle where the size is already mentioned. AadaamS (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply From Shevon
  • Not to Delete: I have provided the link to the wine bottle article too. Conversation factors are too available, so in future this article can be further improved for example by adding suitable pictures etc.
  • Keep: I have provided the link for the wine bottle article too.
  • Not to Delete: Mr. Johnuniq, I always provided you other sources too. This source has its own references and bibliographical list. As you mentioned earlier, you are always referring sample chapters of the book, which is available online and which does not include the referencing list and bibliography list, and consequently providing un-reliable feedbacks. Please providing feedback buy the book and pursue it carefully.
  • Not to Redirect: rather redirecting to the sub-article in Wine bottle article, in which variety of sizes are discussed, I have already included a link as a referring page for the wine bottle article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) Shevonsilva, please start to sign your comments in the normal manner, as you have been asked to do. Not doing so can cause confusion in talk pages and other discussions. PamD 22:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have WP:BOLDly indented and bulleted Shevonsilva's comments so as not to be perceived as four individual !votes. — kikichugirl speak up! 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes Delete: the Oxford English Dictionary does not recognise this wine bottle size (in contrast to "Nebuchadnezzar", which, when spelled correctly, is there defined as "An extremely large wine bottle, used esp. for champagne and usually equivalent to twenty ordinary bottles or 15–16 litres"). The article Wine_bottle#Sizes lists it, but sourced only to a self-published list of bottle sizes of dubious reliability, but there are various other sources which support this name (eg http://www.bigbottles.co.uk/champagne-bottle-sizes). In the absence of any mention in OED, I do not think this term merits a Wikipedia article to itself. PamD 21:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found a good reliable source for champagne bottle sizes - the offical champagne producers' website - and checked and sourced all the champagne bottle sizes listed at Wine bottle#Sizes, as a useful bit of cleanup associated with this discussion. They all merit an entry in their respective disambiguation pages, but they do not merit individual articles. And, in particular, they are not "units", merely names given to a particular size of champagne bottle. Have on further consideration changed my !vote to "Delete", as "Solomon (unit)" is not a term likely to be sought, as it is not a unit. PamD 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Oxford English dictionary does not include all the words in English (particularly all the units in the world). Before arguing about the reliability of the source, all the references in the bibliography list must be properly pursued.
Wikipeadia currently include the unit in Wine_bottle article too. (Through a simple search through a web search engine, many places of the usage of the unit can be found.) Shevonsilva (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - straightforward case of a non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myvillages.org[edit]

Myvillages.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this on notability concerns because I couldn't find any sources that would meet the WP:GNG. It seems to me like this article is written as an advertisement or similar POV, and I'm not sure whether this would merit a rewrite or deletion. Tavix |  Talk  07:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War[edit]

Alleged war crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This issue is already raised in the Sri lankan Civil war article, and does not require an entire article on the topic. This article has a strong POV and the notability of the issue is not sufficient to re-write the entire article. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep completely legitimate content fork from the huge Sri Lankan Civil War article (which should have more of these content forks) dealing in greater detail with what are well-documented allegations aired in the international community. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is drawing up completely a wrong image about the ethnic relationship in Sri Lanka. It has misused citation to fetch fake-evidence to the front line. As a whole the effort to prove the context by the writer is not effective as the most of the content is just a copy-paste from the article Sri Lankan Civil War and therefore this article is better to be deleted. The manner of abused the right to Freedom of information cannot be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinura Pradeep Balasooriya (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand anything you have typed here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't really have the time to read through the article to form an opinion on this one. Point to note though the nominator User:Eng.M.Bandara has now been indef blocked as a sockpuppet it seems. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Neither of the reasons given by the nominator are valid. The article's notability has been established by the numerous RS given in the article. The content on war crimes in the Sri Lankan Civil War is a very brief summary of the widespread allegations - it in no way provides a comprehensive coverage of the issue.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and continues to be a major issues affecting Sri Lanka's international reputation. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to be a personal issue with the user, the topic is clearly notable even after 5 years of end to the war.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No question that this is notable. POV issues should be dealt with by editing after reaching consensus on the article talk page. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable and has Reliable sources .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major issue locally and internationally as well.--Kanags (talk) 03:01, 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 merge to List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls. SpinningSpark 22:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Tower[edit]

John F. Kennedy Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about related buildings, have nearly identical text, are sourced by the same websites, and also fail the Wikipedia:General notability guideline:

John Adams Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Quincy Adams Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Calvin Coolidge Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge all per above. Articles have not received adequate independent coverage.--TM 11:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Margin1522. Note this AFD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington Tower about one other buildings on the campus. I previously figured out that GWTower should probably be merged to the List of University of Massachusetts Amherst residence halls article. The separateness of the AFDs caused redundant research by Maargin1522 and me, apparently. These should have been discussed in one AFD, i believe, per wp:MULTIAFD. Commenters here should consider commenting there, too, for efficiency and fairness/consistency in outcome. --doncram 00:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all: as above. These are, separately, non-notable dorm buildings, indistinguishable from one another for anyone not familiar with the UMass campus, and individually fail the GNG. Ravenswing 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as per Margin1522 KylieTastic (talk) 18:01, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed New England Revolution South Boston stadium[edit]

Proposed New England Revolution South Boston stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the proposal has been covered in independent secondary reliable sources, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". It is too soon to for it to have its own article, as it has not received coverage outside of a brief news cycle (All of the reliable sources I could find were from November 18 and November 19). Although the proposal may eventually receive enough coverage to warrant an article, Wikipedia does not predict the future. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL; this has no information and no notability. GiantSnowman 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is pure speculation, and there is nothing to indicate why this stadium is currently notable. If it is built sometime in the future and happens to receive widespread coverage, perhaps the article can be recreated. --Biblioworm 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Way to early and no official word yet from the Kraft family. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a clear cut case of WP:CRYSTAL. The thing doesn't even have a name yet. Deadbeef 08:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the stadium had actually been greenlit, this article would have some merit, but it's merely been proposed, and we can't very well have articles for stadia that are merely proposed, can we? – PeeJay 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no reason that this information cannot be merged into an article on the team itself, and split back out at a later date if it is ever built. We have many proposed stadium articles, but many of them have a wide-range of sources. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:56, 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.  Sandstein  09:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jalap clan[edit]

Jalap clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn unsourced tribe or clan, not ethnicity, not language Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does seem to fail WP:GNG - nothing that I can find in independent reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 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 no consensus. User:Postdlf presents sources that clearly prove the notability of the topic. That said, there is concern over whether the current content of the article is suitable for an encyclopedia, although there is no consensus that it is not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of the Indiana Dunes[edit]

Birds of the Indiana Dunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unnecessary, and unneeded list. There are no other state parks that have a bird list for it (Source: Category:Lists of birds of the United States). There is a precedent for National Park lists, although the only parks in that list are Yellowstone and Glacier, so I would say this is not notable. In the off-chance of someone looking for birds here, they can go to List of birds of Indiana. Tavix |  Talk  05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article would be very useful to a person visiting the park or living nearby who was interested in birds. However WP-wise it seems to fall into the area of a guidebook or how-to for birdwatchers, not something that would be of general interest. Borock (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article already shows that there are at least two books entirely about just this specific topic (including one from a university press, no less). And page 12 of this source lists more than half a dozen journal articles also just about birds of the Indiana Dunes (as can clearly be seen from the titles listed there). I found a book about the Indiana Dunes that also discusses its birds in depth,[31] and even if all of that were not enough I would expect other books on the region/parks to do the same. So discounting the clearly incorrect ipse dixit "I would say this is not notable", I'm not seeing anything left on the deletion side except WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST or "I'm not personally interested in this." postdlf (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally interested in birds. However the article is just a list of species. If it was prose about the ecosystem I would vote to keep.Borock (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per postdlf, notability means mainly whether enough RS material exists to write a substantial article. In this case it clearly does. Notability doesn't mean "I'm interested" or "of general interest". The nonexistence of similar articles that could be written is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Also list articles have advantages of their own that normal articles don't have (e.g. navigation WP:AOAL). It could be merged to the two articles that link to it (WP:MANYLINKS), but it's too large for that (WP:ARTICLESIZE). From a policy standpoint, seems like the best thing is just to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunway Lagoon[edit]

Sunway Lagoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all of this article is unsourced quasi-advertising material. I couldn't seem to find enough sources to establish its notability, and thus I don't think it can be salvaged. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. To begin with, a HighBeam Research search turns up 1,332 hits from the New Straits Times. [32] A GBooks search reveals that, along with the expected and substantial coverage in travel guides, multiple references can be found in scholarly literature as well, such as Interconnected Worlds: Tourism in Southeast Asia ("Malaysia's first international standard theme park") [33], The Global Theme Park Industry [34], Unsettling Absences: Urbanism in Rural Malaysia ("Malaysia's most popular theme park") [35], and more. Overwhelmingly passes WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 08:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 08:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable. I need not add to what Arxiloxos has said. The article was an ad but I've done a quick Band-Aid fix of that. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:N per a multitude of available reliable sources that provide significant coverage. NorthAmerica1000 10:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DWDZ-TV[edit]

DWDZ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know if this station really existed or was just a hoax. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Most of the results are Wikipedia mirrors. —theenjay36 04:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I can't find mentions about it in it's supposed parent's website as well. --Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator & Lenticel. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject; maybe a hoax. 112.198.83.204 (talk) 02:34, 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 speedy deleted by admin Acroterion with our thanks (non-admin closure). St★lwart111 07:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Take and Bake[edit]

Bob's Take and Bake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evident significance at all; it would be close to having a CSD, but I'm not sure what category it would fit into. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fast via A1 criteria. --Ochilov (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk · contribs)'s comments to the effect that the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC were not rebutted, and this information appears to have been unknown at nomination. The subject has not spoken clearly on the issue of desiring deletion; if she does the request should be made here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Cotter[edit]

Susan Cotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While looking for sources to confirm or contradict the claims about factual errors given on the talk page, I failed to find a single third-party source that covers Cotter in any detail. Thus there's no indication of notability. Furthermore, the person who disputed those claims (and who, according to the primary source, is right) also said that Cotter was interested in seeing the article gone. For BLPs where the subject is of borderline notability, we should defer to the subject's wishes in favor of privacy. See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Huon (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: First of all, read the source again:

Susan Cotter O.D., M.S. received her doctor of optometry degree in 1983 from the Illinois College of Optometry, completed a residency in Children’s Vision at the Southern California College of Optometry (SCCO) in 1984, and received a M.S. degree in Clinical and Biomedical Investigations from the University of Southern California (USC) Keck School of Medicine in 2006

Obviously it means master's in optometry. Second, even if Barack Obama will want his article to be deleted we as Wikipedians are not deleting anything simply because one person doesn't like the information on him/her. Third, the primary source indicates that she is a former chair woman of the American Academy of Optometry a notability guideline which is covered by the WP:Academics #6. Fourth, if that's not enough I can speak to user @Randykitty: and maybe he will see if she is notable.--Mishae (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? The article currently says, "Cotter got her master's degree from the Illinois College of Optometry in 1983". Unless you say a doctor of optometry is a master's degree, or that she got both in the same year, the article is wrong (but that on its own is not a reason to delete it, of course). Regarding notability, I'm looking forward to seeing third-party sources that cover Cotter in some detail. For Obama we have them; for Cotter I couldn't find any. I'll have to note that the American Academy of Optometry article doesn't cite any, either. Huon (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: In the current field yes, O.D. M.S. probably means master's degree in optometry, since it is an abriviation for Doctor of Optometry Master of Science. I changed it to Ph.D. since its probably means that. As far as the American Academy of Optometry article goes, maybe the editors forgot to update it. Realize that not every individual is wikified there either.--Mishae (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? O.D. and M.S. are two separate degrees, not a single four-letter degree, one of them means a doctor (not masters) in optometry, and neither of them is the same as a Ph.D. I agree with Huon: this sort of guesswork is not ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should have the discussion about content on the article talk page, not here. I still see no third-party coverage of Cotter, but rather WP:OR guesswork unsuitable for a biography of a living person. Huon (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: From where did you got that WP:OR from? I see no original research because its sourced. Either way, we will wait till Randykitty will come and then we will continue this discussion wherever you want. I'm usually dubious in my writing regarding doctors, but I trust him because he knows better.:)--Mishae (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strangest thing...The American Academy of Optometry has Presidents, not Chairpersons - and her name ain't on the list. Otherwise, no one really cares about how many degrees she's got, that and a quarter might buy you a song downtown. Not Noteworthy per WP:ACADEMIC Nikto wha? 02:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Then that solves everything, I guess. I wrote the article by the fact that she is a chairperson of a notable organization. Guess I was wrong, thanks for heads up though. Will keep your Presidents of American Academy of Optometry in my mind. :)--Mishae (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm open to changing my mind if someone finds more evidence that she is a notable academic, but at the moment this is a long stretch. Metamagician3000 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. There are some issues with the article, as noted above (correcting her educational record, for example), but that is rather trivial. She has no GScholar profile, but GS does list some heavily-cited articles. She does have a Scopus profile, which gives citation data that are borderline notable (but Scopus has no good coverage before the mid-90s and Cotter started doing research in the 80S). I went to the (more reliable) Web of Science and found over a 100 publications, cited 2423 times (highest ones: 184, 149, 121) with an h-index of 28. This is beyond the range of what we usually take as meeting WP:ACADEMIC#1. Her profile at USC is not online any more, but she has another one at Marshall B. Ketchum University. There are a few fellowships mentioned, but I would need to do some more research to figure out whether those are selective enough for ACADEMIC#3. She also seems to have written a textbook (which has been translated into Spanish), if that would be used widely, she'd make #4.
Normally I would now !vote "keep", but the wishes of the subject count, too. Mishae is right that we wouldn't delete Barack Obama, but that's not a fair comparison, because Obama obviously is so notable that it would be ridiculous not covering him. Cotter is notable because of her citation record, and I don't think WP would suffer significantly if we didn't cover her. However, before !voting "delete", I'd like to know where and how the subject expressed her wish that this bio be deleted (and that we can be sure that it was the indeed the subject herself) and whether she would still want this bio deleted if the factual errors in the bio are corrected. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A person who said they were an acquaintance of Cotter came into the live help channel #wikipedia-en-help connect, pointed out the factual errors, and insisted that Cotter wanted the article deleted despite our explanations that the inaccuracies could easily be corrected. Josve05a was present during that conversation. We haven't spoken to Cotter herself, but I see no reason to doubt that person's account of her wishes. Huon (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine her being upset about an article containing mistakes, but would she still object to a corrected bio? I find a person that came on IRC (i.e., not through more formal channels) not really convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not through more formal channels - People prefer IRC-chat much more than send an email to info-en-q due to it is acctually live, they think it is just the same "support-group". Furthermore, I can confirm that the helpee in the chat was chatting from Los Angeles, California. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current source doesn not establish notability in my opinion. Therefor I'm !voting !delete, that does not mean I'm not open to chnage my mind if something else comes up. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to Keep: meets ACADEMIC#1 and possibly other criteria, too (but one is enough). No convincing arguments in favor of deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think people will say that this article is not a part of this AfD but it had the same issue. A user came to my the article talkpage and mine as well and complained that I did some inaccuracies and therefore the subject need to be deleted. Now, that subject was covered by the New York Times which made her automatically notable. In this case, I don't see coverage from New York Times or the like, but user @Enigma: convinced me back then not to delete the article simply because the subject issued an ultimatum. Really, Wikipedia relies heavily on notability and we shouldn't really care about subject's wishes. If we will care about every wish of a subject we will end up writing about dead individuals and looking for reliable sources through archives which is a) pain in the butt and b) some websites get deleted long before they end up in any of the archives. This practice of caring of individual wishes will lead us to 1 million less articles because majority of dead individuals are covered on Wikipedia. Plus, our readers are relying heavily on biographies, majority of them read on the living ones.--Mishae (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to mention; the nominator didn't read the fine print under the PROD template which said that the previous discussion was closed as keep, that means that we should close this discussion as keep too per WP:SNOW.--Mishae (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but monitor. BLP issues are usually fixed quickly, when they are on people's radars (watch lists). Bearian (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off topic comment So what does watch lists do? Like, they never notify me of any changes in the article, so what is their purpose?--Mishae (talk) 20:51, 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, slakr\ talk / 03:54, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of f(x) endorsements[edit]

List of f(x) endorsements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is clearly unencyclopedic and does not have any notable information to remain on Wikipedia. It also does not contain any reliable sources. "List of Endorsements" violates WP:PROMO and is just a means of advertising. If Michael Phelps earns $45 million a year from appearances and endorsements 1and he does not have such a list on here, then this article should not either. TerryAlex (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very much PROMO. Should be summarized and included in prose in the main f(x) article, as this information is almost an indiscriminate list of unsourced information. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per INDISCRIMINATE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:46, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girls' Generation endorsements[edit]

List of Girls' Generation endorsements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is clearly unencyclopedic and does not have any notable information to remain on Wikipedia. It also is missing many reliable sources. "List of Endorsements" violates WP:PROMO and is just a means of advertising. If Michael Phelps earns $45 million a year from appearances and endorsements 1and he does not have such a list on here, then this article should not either.--TerryAlex (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly PROMO. This borders on an indiscriminate listing of stuff. Should be greatly condensed, retaining only highlights, and inserted into the prose of the main Girls' Generation article. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per INDISCRIMINATE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:45, 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 no consensus. Relisted after the nominator was blocked and a NAC. Discussion prior to the relist was heavily in favor of the article; afterwards less so. I do not see that either side has consensus even after relisting. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Skye[edit]

Brittney Skye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: - Brittney Skye fails WP:Pornbio. She has no major award wins, no mainstream popularity, no unique contributions to porn.Redban (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has won an AVN award, so for me she passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 11 December 2014, 19:00 CET
WP:Pornbio says, "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." Redban (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Pornbio #2 uses the word, "starred," which means she needs to be the principal performer in that "iconic, groundbreaking, blockbuster feature." That word eliminates the Snoop Dogg movie. Skye did star in Grub Girl, but was that flick truly an "iconic, groundbreaking, blockbuster feature"? If we apply the WP:Pornbio standards to "Grub Girl," we must note that it was only nominated at the AVN for "Best Video"; it did not win the award (or any others. In fact, I don't think it was nominated at XBiz or Fame). As for the point about Maxim, WP:Pornbio #3 uses the word "multiple," meaning more than once, so one appearance in Maxim is insufficient. Furthermore, that Maxim list was in their (now defunct) UK version according to http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Maxim-U-K-Names-Top-12-Porn-Stars-400571.html Does Maxim UK have much credibility? Brittney Skye shot all her pornography in America, after all. Redban (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest Davey2010 and Subtropical-man's votes should be disregarded for lack of explanation. Redban (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest Redban suffers from bad loser syndrome and his comment should be ignored. For the record they did give a reason. -- fdewaele, 15 December 2014, 11:00 CET
Comment - I suggest Redban should be blocked for the poorly-nominated afds, I'll admit my reason isn't brilliant but I cited 2 policies which she passes so isn't that bad either.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please note that I have recently edited the article in question here. Skye has starred "in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" (Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp), and she has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media."
As an aside, she, in fact, did not shoot all of her films in the USA alone, as she was previously under contract with a company called "Sineplex", which apparently has shot some films in Russia.[36] Guy1890 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was originally closed as a clear Keep by myself, however, the NAC closure was contested as "too early". I've reverted myself and this AfD is again open for discussion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There;s a lot of heat generated over other behavior by the nominator, but looking at the relevant SNG makes matters quite clear:
    • Skye fails criterion #1 of PORNBIO. While she has a single AVN Award, it is in a scene-related category, and therefore does not satisfy PORNBIO.
    • Skye fails criterion #3 of PORNBIO. While she has credits in two apparently notable films, her roles were minor and unbilled, which therefore by consensus fails the criterion.
    • Skye fails criterion #2 of PORNBIO. While she appeared in Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp, she definitely did not "star" in that release. She is, instead one of 40 performers in a party/orgy scene. The same claim was made for another porn performer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Smiles, and was rejected by consensus. As several editors noted in that discussion, the primary element of notability here is "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre", and simply being in a particular film is mot enough to satisfy that. Moreover, as Morbidthoughts (hardly an anti-porn editor) noted in that discussion, "This criteria is meant to be construed strictly with support from reliable sources (not just the usual puffing press releases) that acknowledge the contributions." There are no reliable sources acknowledging the purported contributions here, or even indicating what they might be. The case for "Grub Girl" is no better. Nothing evidences that this film is actually "an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature"; it appears to be no more than borderline notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg, which is the paradigm for evaluating PORNBIO #2 claims. The discussion was, quite properly, not closed as keep until reliable third-party sourcing was produced which clearly established the film's significance.
    • Skye fails the GNG. There is no significant reliable sourcing regarding the subject herself, beyond the trivial coverage of a casino publicity stunt -- nowhere near enough for a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I have previously stated in this more recent discussion, "I personally do not believe that (the Mia Smiles) AfD settled these types of issues properly & permanently, since not that many people actually participated in that old AfD." In addition, Skye does not appear to me to appear "unbilled" in Snoop Dogg's Hustlaz: Diary of a Pimp, and she apparently appeared in "Scene #7 along with 7 other performers. She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show. Finally, besides some current issues with dead links in the article in question here, I see no real issues with unreliable sourcing in this article. Guy1890 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB doesn't list her among the billed performers. The official site from the film's production company doesn't list her as a "star" of the film. [37](very NSFW link). Why do you think we should invent something not to be found in reliable sources? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"IMDB doesn't list her among the billed performers"...but IAFD & the Adult Film Database, which are usually much more comphrehensive databases for this genre of films, do list her as being a performer in the film in question here. I'm not "inventing" anything here Mr. Wolfowitz. Guy1890 (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you've invented is a unique definition of "starred in", defining it down to "appeared in". That's not a good faith argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that she passes GNG and feel that Guy1890's comment above reinforces that. Dismas|(talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the notability requirements for this occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 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, slakr\ talk / 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-procedurally relisted due to prior reverted close --slakr\ talk / 03:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reasonable interpretation of starred in to be mean appeared in and arguments to keep based on false policy should be ignored. Otherwise what we are left with is an inadequately sourced BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 09:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Guy1890 comments. She passes the general notability guidelines. HW confuses trivial coverage in rating the importance of the subject matter when it should be the breadth of the coverage across multiple reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 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 delete. Google hits are not a showing of notability, and independent sourcing has not been shown. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Brassell[edit]

Andy Brassell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable football journalist. Only references are to work he has written and an interview with himself. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does he pass that? One of the criteria is "Independent of the subject". The entirety of the first ten pages are either journalist index pages or articles he has wrote. There's no disputing he is a journalist, but how is he notable? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quotes from a subject and articles by a subject (short of the Prof Test) are explicitly debarred from supporting the notability of the subject. Anyone got any reliable sources discussing the subject in significant detail? Haven't found any. Nha Trang Allons! 20:15, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:15, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 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. (WP:SNOW). NorthAmerica1000 23:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peppa Pig: The Movie[edit]

Peppa Pig: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely a hoax, quick search found only a notation on a wikia. The popularity of this series would undoubtedly show some form of online footprint for this movie. Only wiki presence are edits by the original article author or IPs that have edited both. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the popularity of the series, there's no way such a film could fly under the radar so this appears to be a hoax. Pichpich (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, also feel I should point out this was tagged for speedy delete several times, and it appears that the admin rejecting the speedy delete may have a COI as they often edit the article Peppa Pig. War wizard90 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources found, and if you're going to hoax a movie poster, at least get the ratings symbols right and not make it look like it was done in MS Paint or something, and no professional film project comes out after only a month of voice and animation work. Nate • (chatter) 10:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per absolute lack of verifiability. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either a HOAX or TOOSOON, Either way doesn't warrant an article yet (or at all). –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:12, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (discourse) @ 21:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School[edit]

El Uali Mustapha Sayed Special School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Most sources are either blatantly unreliable or non-independent Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:52, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 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, Wifione Message 03:06, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Powell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Edwin Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was no consensus in 2010 AfD, mainly because of poor participation. I cannot see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No special achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is a tough one. Plenty of issues with the article, sourcing, and may be of dubious notability...but this is an example of what makes an internet encyclopedia cool, that people can upload this kind of thing. Allowing for the era he comes from he could be considered notable. I would keep unless someone can discredit the sources. Vrac (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to agree with Vrac in that I also find the whole era thing amazing - I wouldn't know the first thing about writing about someone who was born & died in 1800s so personally I find it amazing that someone this year did!, Anyway waffling on! - I'll admit the sources aren't great but IMHO it'll be beneficial to keep the article than to delete it (Yes I know I'm keeping in essence per WP:ILIKEIT but its extremely rare I do.), –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:57, 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, Wifione Message 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reliable sources are conspicuously lacking (notwithstanding an "awesome explanation") and he fails WP:SOLDIER. There's an impressively long bibliography, but no way of telling if it has any connection to the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ransack-Raid the Rostrum[edit]

Ransack-Raid the Rostrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organized event. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:09, 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, Wifione Message 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, the formatting took me all of 2 minutes to fix and now we can actually see what is being discussed. It would seem the name of the organisation is "Auxesis" and the event they run is titled "Ransack-Raid the Rostrum". In some sources, the latter is listed as the theme for 2014 in particular. So I wonder if a move to Auxesis (something) might not be a better solution? St★lwart111 03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The strongest consensus was disapproval of the manner in which the original author wrote this article after being commissione to do so in exchange for payment. Despite that disapproval, there is consensus that the subject is notable, and the article sufficiently neutral that deletion is inappropriate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Katz[edit]

Jerome Katz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written for pay by User:FergusM1970 per [38]. The question is where does the community stand on the paid undisclosed paid writing of articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, NPOV and not in a prohibited category of paid editing.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and I haven't actually been paid yet. Go have another rummage on Elance, Doc, and I think you'll find that this is not yet a paid article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but you are hoping to be paid Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not... exactly. But I assume you've confirmed that I haven't been.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be a problem. SLU's site is down at the moment, but I should be able to find an RS in a couple of minutes.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SLU site still down, but I can do his CV for now. It's hosted on the SLU business school site. Any good?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CV added. I have the link to the SLU faculty site, which I will add as soon as the site's working again. If I'm not around to do so I'm sure someone else can verify and add it. For reference here it is: http://www.slu.edu/x19132.xml --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And added.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Per google scholar: h-index is ~28, 10 publications with >100 cites. That's a pretty clear evidence for WP:NACADEMIC #1: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a good cite:
Jacobi, Jorie (May 15, 2013). "The Godfather of Startups: Dr. Jerome Katz, Coleman Chair of Entrepreneurship at Saint Louis University". stlcurator.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person is notable, any problems caused by paid editing can be fixed with edits. link1link2link3link4 He holds a named professorship at a major university. AlbinoFerret 03:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Academic is notable as having a named chair. The fact that the article was or will be paid for is a basis for banning the editor, not for deleting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which simply means that all paid articles will be written by sock puppets. Sock puppet writes the article. Gets blocked if discovered. But article gets kept and they get paid. Than they use a new sock for the next job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If I'd written all my paid articles like this, properly sourced and disclosed, I wouldn't be getting banned, would I?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you might still. The community is against undisclosed paid editing. Disclosed paid editing is sort of a grey area. Many support only commenting on talk pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, that's why I said "If I'd disclosed it." As I understand COI, though, articles that aren't promotional, attack pieces etc are fairly non-controversial if they're disclosed.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rewrite. He's notable enough for an article, but somebody else should write it. Yes, I could revise this article to make it NPOV, and I have done so for similar articles hundreds of times. I am not sure whether the approach I have previously taken is right, or whether we should go back to the simply statement: if you are notable, someone uninvolved will write the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Content problems with tone are an editorial matter, not a notability matter, as you are aware... Carrite (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A spammy article drawn from sources that are demonstrably not independent (mainly recycled press releases). Whether or not a good article could be written is largely irrelevant, because this is not a good article, it's an article that fails to meet our policies on neutrality and sourcing of biographies. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His CV and linked in profile are not reliable sources. We are not here to host peoples cvs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that having unreliable sources as well as a reliable one is really grounds for deletion.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with the paid editing one bit, but he does have a named chair and WP:NACADEMICS is specific in saying that that is enough for notability. DiscantX (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes PROF as holder of a named professorship at a major university. Trout to Doc James for what appears to be a retaliatory nomination against the creation of a recently-banned paid editor. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability, even at close range. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand an argument that says the page ought to be deleted due to its promotional nature or because it was authored by a banned editor. I'm not following your argument that subject notability is absent, though. Are you saying that the subject does not occupy a named chair and did not write the papers attributed to him? If those facts are correct, then I think notability is, well, obvious. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional nature and the paid editing is secondary here. Are you trying to tell me that if my position is 'named' and I have published a few papers, I automatically become eligible for a Wikipedia article? Woohoo, let me go publish a few more papers then. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how awesome he is, if his 'named chair' is being backed up by a LinkedIn post, it fails WP:V. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a pass through the article and chopped out the dubious cites including linkedin and the CV. The cite to the university should be more than sufficient for his named chair. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of multiple, third party, discussions of this person in reliable sources. This lack of independent coverage trumps the academic notability criteria. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing standards for the General Notability Guideline, but this case is an instance of passing a Special Notability Guide set up for Academics. Think of it as a low bar set up for those who are deemed encyclopedia-worthy as a general category but for whom mass media or book sourcing is normally difficult to muster. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even the easy to pass WP:ACADEMIC accepts that: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." The broad-brush idea is that if everyone else thinks a subject isn't worth writing about then it probably isn't. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is actually a high bar, rather than a low one. Google scholar lists over 5000 reliably published papers that cite his work, and presumably some small but nonzero fraction of them go into nontrivial detail about it, so WP:GNG is easy to meet. WP:PROF says that's not enough, and we have to have either significant impact of the work, or other indicators of notability such as named chairs (which are far from easy to attain). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC. The article being created by a paid editor is not a sufficient policy reason for deletion. KonveyorBelt 22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but... the article's subject barely meets WP:NACADEMICS. Perhaps it's time to re-examine the guideline. Miniapolis 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Contrary to some above, we blow-up problem articles, and there is nothing wrong with that in the least. Here, my judgement is the article has been sufficiently 'leveled' (to extend the blow-up metaphor) and NACADEMICS, as weak as it is, is satisfied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see only 4 sources, only 1 might be considered independent and marginally reliable. The Coleman foundation site is not independent and in any case gives only one line to Katz, The StlCurator makes a point that its vision is to promote a positive image of St. Louis, the St Louis U blurb is very short and of course not independent, the marginally reliable source in this case is the St. Louis-Post Dispatch (normally a very reliable source) - but this short article is about a fairly small routine event and just mentions Katz in passing as one of the presenters. If the best a paid editor can do is come up with these short blurbs, there may not be anything behind the curtain. Delete and if somebody can come up with some real sources it can be recreated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "not independent"? All of those sources are independent of the subject, Mr. Katz. Nor have you accounted for NACADEMIC #1Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources are absolutely NOT independent.
  • The St. Louis U site with the blurb represents the view of his employer - and they have an interest in making him appear to be a great teacher/scholar. In my experience these blurbs are usually written by the prof himself, or by the department head.
  • The site of Coleman Foundation, which pays for his chair, is also not independent. They might be expected to give him undeserved praise in order to puff up the effectiveness of their activities. The fact that they didn't puff him up - only giving him one line - of course does not establish the independence of the prof and the foundation.
  • The STLCurator was founded by St. Louis promoters - "We are a group of creative professionals who got tired of the negative press of our beloved city, and decided to do something productive with our frustration." (top of the page at Vision. It wonderful that they want to promote their hometown - but it means that they are not a reliable source, nor are they independent.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch definitely is a reliable source, but the only thing it reports on in this short article is that Katz was a speaker at a fairly small routine meeting open to the public.
As far as holding a named chair: quoting WP:Academic
"5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
...
"Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability."
This leaves a lot up to our discretion. I'm not that familiar with St. Louis U, but generally I respect Jesuit institutions and consider them to be almost up to the level of similarly sized state institutions. Maybe a good comparison in this case would be to University of Missouri - St. Louis or Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. It definitely ain't Washington University at St. Louis though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. It is bizarre to call the University not independent of Mr. Katz but at least understandable in the Wiki way (although the University of St. Louis is still RS, regardless). The other organizations are independent of him - not being him, they have taken notice of him - you may not think they should notice him but so what. And then there is the scholarship score. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of academic-related deletion discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear, cut and dry, obvious, and settled, with passes of both WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. I can only imagine that all of the WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE comments above are either completely unfamiliar with WP:PROF and with academic deletion cases, or are letting their opinions be biased by the paid editing issue rather than viewing notability objectively as a separate issue. As for the paid editing: it's a legitimate reason for calling an AfD in spite of clear notability, and if the paid-editing version were still the version we were debating I'd agree that WP:TNT is appropriate. But I think subsequent edits have removed that issue to the point where we can debate the article on the basis of notability alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am completely opposed to undisclosed paid editing, especially by tendentious, argumentative POV pushers, and am pleased with the ban of this one. That being said, I agree with what David Eppstein wrote immediately above. I encourage Doc James to continue the conversation elsewhere, while disagreeing on this specific point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree this is a much wider discussion than this single article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like the guy passes WP:NACADEMIC. Since the main contributor to the article has a conflict of interests check the article for possible bias. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:39, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Girls (band)[edit]

Five Girls (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The group never debuted and is not notable. Random86 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above. The agency doesn't even exist anymore. All proposed group members went on to do other stuff, so this failed project can be discussed in their individual biographies. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 15:20, 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 merge to 2014 Sydney hostage crisis. A redirect to the merge target should be created after the content is merged. NorthAmerica1000 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illridewithyou[edit]

Illridewithyou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the hashtag was a response to a specific event, and is appropriately covered in the article about that event. It is not sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. Jeffro77 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and Merge content. I created this page title as a redirect to the event which spawned this hashtag. I believe the topic is worthy of discussion within the concept of that article, but that it has no "independent" merit. The content of this article should be merged back in to the main article and this title redirected - as it was before. I suspect this article was created to push a POV as there are differing political interpretations about this hashtag in Australian media at the moment. Wittylama 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although an apparent peripheral event surrounding an event that was over-covered by media, and social media, the actual context of a twitter controversy about ethnic relations in Australia is sufficiently stand alone as a subject, in view of the phenomenon of the political and social tensions that surround inter-religious and inter-ethnic relations in the larger cities. satusuro 01:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - in view of various comments on this page satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this is nothing to do with the response below... satusuro 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing preventing the inclusion of the hashtag in relevant articles, though it is not necessarily appropriate to do so as generic unsourced social commentary. Controversy about ethnic relations in Australia may indeed warrant its own article, but this article should not be used as a coatrack for that purpose. Feel free to improve articles such as racism in Australia and racial violence in Australia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quick google news search brings up multiple articles about the hashtag itself, including an Al Jazeera article. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and unblock article creator - Given the inaccurate reporting of the chocolate shop hostage situation, it is important to include this hashtag, which proves that it was not generally regarded as terrorism. The creator of this article, TheAlmighteyDrill, did nothing wrong here, and if he did accidentally break the BLP, it was certainly not done maliciously, as it was quoting an accurate newspaper source. All he was doing was trying to make this as accurate as possible. KrampusC (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to keep this article merely because it is believed that another article is inaccurately reporting something (which would make this a POV fork). There are currently concerns with the main article regarding breaches of WP:LABEL with respect to calling the event 'terrorism' in the absence of strong expert sources calling it such, but that is not a basis for independent notability of the subject of this article. (I wasn't aware the editor who substantially edited this article had been blocked, but it is completely irrelevant here. An AfD discussion cannot make a judgement on unblocking an editor. If the editor wishes to be unblocked, they will need to follow the separate request process.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was blocked for an edit on this article, so I would think it was relevant. I am sure that there is some policy somewhere about blocking someone for creating an article then putting that article up for AFD straight afterwards. KrampusC (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you twice, the editor was blocked primarily for another, more serious, BLP violation. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you told me twice, there is no need to tell me a third time. It comes across as rather aggressive and heavy handed. And since you are referring to something that I can't see, I am only going to refer to things that I can see, and that this does not seem to be a BLP violation. KrampusC (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware the editor (who technically was not the creator of the article, but who I later learned was the substantial contributor) had been blocked when I submitted the AfD. The fact that the editor was blocked has no bearing on the reasons already indicated for recommending deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into 2014 Sydney Hostage Crisis as was its original state, or Delete fails WP:NEWS but sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in that article for the positive responses. Gnangarra 02:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sydney siege page Are there any other individually significant hashtags? It's not yet Take Back the Night. This could be useful as a pointer to the main Sydney siege page, as part of the community response, but I don't know that it's significant in its own right. Time will tell. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've included discussion of this article, of the article's creator being blocked, and this AFD, in the BLP noticeboard here: [39] Please look at the discussion there, as it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith. KrampusC (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • since this discussion started at Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Illridewithyou a couple of hours earlier and some suggestions there by other editors warranted a formal discussion. If you going to throw AGF around please at least include the whole timeline of events. Gnangarra 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he is to immediately withdraw his false accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You, sir, need to calm down, and stop with the false accusations!!! I have tried to be civil with you but you are being incredibly nasty towards me. I have nothing to apologise for, because I did not make any false accusation. I said that you did not seem to have genuinely made this AFD, as it would seem to me that it was based around the person being banned, which, from what I can see, was done rashly based on an inaccurate appraisal of something being a violation of BLP, when it was in fact just 1 word different to an exact quote, which is nowhere near an actual BLP violation. I am sure that anyone following this would agree that I have been more than kind with you. I wrote on your talk page, and I have been very considerate. You need to stop with the attitude. Questioning what is going on is not the same thing as a false accusation. You need to learn the difference and stop assuming bad faith. Thank you. KrampusC (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not helping yourself - "it relates to this AFD nomination, and whether the AFD nomination was made in good faith" - is easy to understand. We know what you meant. We're not idiots. Posing a personal attack as a question doesn't make it less of a personal attack. St★lwart111 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been explained to KrampusC—repeatedly—that the other editor was blocked (not banned) for edits on the Talk page of another article. I will state it again as simply as I can: The nomination of this article has nothing to do with the editor, User:The Almightey Drill. When I submitted the AfD, I a) didn't know the other editor had been blocked, and b) didn't know he had edited this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - (I'd almost be inclined to delete). The fact that the original creator is blocked is irrelevant. The article shouldn't have been created and it doesn't look like any amount of argument on his part would convince editors otherwise. Like everyone, he would only get one !vote. Of course the nomination was in good faith and if there is some suggestion it wasn't, I'd be happy to close this and restart a second for the sake of bureaucracy (which will undoubtedly produce the same result). This was a minor (made up) part of a broader news story and can easily be covered with a line or two there. If it's kept, the fact that the genesis story was (at least in part) invented should be included, but "fabricated" is a clear misreading of the sources and (in the context) a BLP violation. St★lwart111 03:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - No independent notability on its own without standing on the notability of the Sydney siege event, this is better off as a subsection within the siege article. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and remerge - the Illridewithyou movement is likely to be a short term entity and doesn't yet deserve a page of its own. It is noteworthy, so should be mentioned on the siege page. If it takes off and gains followers, that will be the time to start its own page. Akld guy (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in encyclopedic terms --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (NB This editor is a blocked sockpuppet - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • I've struck the !vote accordingly. ansh666 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above; it's a very valid search term. ansh666 20:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect with 2014 Sydney hostage crisis or relevant to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis articles. The event is so far short lived and therefore doesn't deserve a standalone article about it.--Mishae (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect I know that Google hits are not deemed a good measure of notability, but 1.44 million of them is far more than many/most articles. - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main aspect of the hostage crisis that was raised in the news was whether or not it was terrorism, and the fears that it would lead to race-related rioting, as happened in the Cronulla riots. This hashtag seems to have calmed down any thought of race-related rioting, and there were no anti-Islam attacks as a result, while otherwise there might have been. This is probably why it got over 1 million Google hits. In many ways, this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself, at least for people in Australia. KrampusC (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a single part of that preposterous claim is verifiable. You are welcome to a personal opinion about such things but inventing a potential threat of race riots (based on completely unrelated and disparate racial tensions a decade earlier) and claiming that this flash-in-the-pan Twitter hashtag prevented said fictional threat from eventuating is just ridiculous. That's like claiming I cured cancer by re-tweeting the Cancer Council's Christmas message. St★lwart111 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that "this hashtag was more important than the hostage crisis itself" is spurious and, at the very least, debatable. The claim that the hashtag prevented riots is entirely unfounded. Correlation does not imply causation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:44, 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 redirect to South Carolina in the American Civil War. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. The redirection allows editors to merge content from the history to whichever articles may be appropriate.  Sandstein  09:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of South Carolina[edit]

Republic of South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is, at most, an "informal" name. Content here is duplicated with South Carolina in the American Civil War. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete subjective content with no significant sources, perhaps some of the content might be suitable for incorporation in South Carolina--Mevagiss (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The South Carolina in the American Civil War article is in need of secession specific information found in this article regardless of the end result of proposed deletion or merger. I have created a section in that (SC in ACW) article using the most relevant information and sources from this one and augmenting with other parts of the timeline and additional cites. Please edit as needed. Red Harvest (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I would remind editors though to treat primary sources, such as emails, with care in articles like this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code[edit]

Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no substantial coverage of this article (or book?) in reliable sources. The article appears to have been primarily created as an attack page, and I can't find sufficient reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's several RSes listed right there on the page (Linux Today, LinuxInsider, NewsForge, CommsWorld AU, IT Pro UK, academic source First Monday). You're literally claiming none of these are RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator: I wrote the original content that was moved from another article for this one. I didn't create it as an "attack page", and that comes across as a personal attack on me. Is that what you meant to do? If not, please withdraw the accusation - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: There are two inline citations in the whole article. As I brought up on the article's talk page, I'm not sure Linux Insider is a WP:RS. It looks like a niche online publication, and it's not apparently notable enough itself for a Wikipedia article. The IT Pro source doesn't mention the Samizdat article, so it's not sufficient to establish notability, and is probably WP:COATRACK to include since it doesn't specifically mention the subject of the article. There are a number of external links (I trimmed quite a few, including some that were links to emails). However, as I said in nominating this article, there aren't currently sufficient reliable sources in the article to establish notability. If you are aware of such WP:RS, please add them to the article as inline citations. The original article appeared to me to be very biased and in violation of WP:NPOV. That's why I sought to clean it up, and in so doing, I've had difficulty establishing notability, which is why I ultimately nominated this article for deletion. Sentences like "The book was greeted with almost universal derision by the technical world and was repudiated by many of its claimed sources," especially with no sourcing, are unencyclopedic and do give the impression of an attack page. I'm not saying it was your intention to create an attack page, but the original article was in violation of quite a few of Wikipedia's guidelines. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are three inline citations, not two. The reference to the Wall Street Journal in the section headed "Reactions to Samizdat" hasn't been formatted as a footnote, but that isn't required by our guidelines, as far as I am aware. For the avoidance of doubt, NRVE requires the existence of reliable sources, not their immediate citation, inline or otherwise. James500 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think "(WSJ, 14 June 2004)" really counts as a reference, since it's not verifiable. The WSJ undoubtedly published many things on that day, so we'd need an article title. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is total nonsense. All you have to do is search for the quote in Google, and it immediately comes up with this WSJ article (which is obviously what is being cited) and other reliable sources such as Ars Technica. And, yes, you do have to actually look for these sources yourself (WP:BEFORE). James500 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment – For purposes of this discussion, I added a convenience link to the story, as the original is paywalled. I'll replace it with the official url later, once we confirm that the WSJ story is in fact about the report. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding the article. However, it doesn't mention the subject of this article, so I don't see how we can use it as a source here. The topic of this article is a book called Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code. The WSJ article mentions a report by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, but it doesn't give a title. How can we know it is referring to Samizdat? I don't see how the Samizdat book (or article/report) meets our notability guidelines. I think any reliably sourced content about it can be included in the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute's page, but why does it needs its own page? Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WSJ's description of the contents of the report is far more detailed than you suggest. If the description of the contents is sufficiently detailed that it could not plausibly refer to any other report by the institute, it does not need to mention the title of the report. James500 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This German article from Heinz Heise discusses the topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I added that to the article, since there was a Citation needed tag saying that we need a secondary source saying that "samizdat" was a reference to "a form of private circulation of suppressed literature within Soviet-bloc countries". – Margin1522 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC) And I also added the slang meaning -- code and techniques passed in samizdat fashion from programmer to programmer. Now it makes sense. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I followed this story as it was happening and it seemed like every Linux journalist wrote a story on it. The article needs a cleanup pass to move the external links into citations, but (in my opinion) there's no doubt as to notability here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Lesser Cartographies this was a big story, at least among journalists interested in Linux and operating system kernels. I don't agree that emails should be excluded. An email from Dennis Ritchie may be used as a source of information about Dennis Ritchie, in an article about him (WP:SELFSOURCE). Although inline references are preferable, there is no requirement saying that they must be inline (WP:GENREF). – Margin1522 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article in its current state is clearly somewhat biased, but the response to this book (with audits that demonstrated its inaccuracy) played an important role in publicising and legitimising open software from a commercial perspective. FLHerne (talk) 23:51, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 21:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JoonYong Park[edit]

JoonYong Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are his bio or interviews about his life. References does not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. CerealKillerYum (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Creative director at top agency, frequently interviewed, meets GNG. Normally we want 1 or 2 in-depth profiles. This article has 7. Is it that the sources are not notable? Advertising Age has an article in WP. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:43, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica1000 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

21C Media Group[edit]

21C Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies heavily on primary sources and a brief mention in the Financial Times. This agency is absent from the well-known O'Dwyer's list of largest PR agencies, suggesting notability is not earned from its size. There is a paragraph about it in a New York Times piece, but it is not close to enough to pass WP:ORG, which requires two profile stories where the agency is the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:18, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) @ 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audible Treats[edit]

Audible Treats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article pieced together with blogs, brief mentions, interviews and non-RS sources written by crowd-sourced "contributors". Article consists primarily of name-dropping. There is no indication this org is of historical significance. CorporateM (Talk) 22:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:17, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica1000 03:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design[edit]

Edwin F. Guth Memorial Award for Interior Lighting Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable award. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – SLPalmer55 hasn't commented yet, but he wrote on the Talk page: "I'm not sure what kind of evidence you need to support the fact that this is a notable award, but I'd like to make a case for it. I know that this is a subjective statement, but this really is the most highly sought-after award in the world of lighting design." From his editing history he seems to know what he's talking about, so I'm inclined to believe that. It's a long-standing award. If we have this article, we can link to it from articles on lighting designers to show that they have won the most notable award in their field. Just to give a similar example, I've been looking for a long time for evidence on the Internet to back up what we say in our article, that El Croquis is the world's most prestigious architecture magazine. It's just something that everyone knows. Not to say that proof for this award doesn't exist. SLPalmer55 might be able to tell us more. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:29, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:49, 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.
  • Comment – Here are some online sources that reference the IES Illumination Awards and the Guth Award. I wish there were more discussion about it in magazines, but for some reason there isn't. It's just one of those things in the lighting world that everybody knows about.

Louie's e-newsletter, LIGHTNOW, is another publisher with a listing of the IA Awards. He has his articles by category, so I searched under Awards and found these most recent entries: http://www.lightnowblog.com/2014/12/ies-announces-2014-illumination-awards-winners/ http://www.lightnowblog.com/2013/07/ies-announces-award-of-merit-recipients-for-the-2013-illumination-awards/

Searching for IES Illumination Awards, this link came up, which includes a paragraph about the Guth Awards: http://inventorspot.com/articles/2014_ies_illumination_awards_are_looking_bright_designers

LEDs Magazine announced the awards: http://www.ledsmagazine.com/ugc/iif/2014/12/05/ies-announces-2014-illumination-awards-finalists-for-lighting-design.html

IES Illuminating Awards 2014 http://www.ies.org/lda/E-newsletter/2014/AC-Review/IAAwardslayout.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgordon204 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Also, I'm sorry if this comment isn't formatted in the same way as the others. I'm still getting used to the way things are done around here.

SLPalmer55 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:NPASR on account of low participation though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Owen[edit]

Laura Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has had copyright issues for some time now; while those issues have apparently been worked out enough that the csd and corhen search bot tagging have stopped the article still appears to be iffy on the notability front, specifically the General Notability Guidelines. While the article asserts that a governmental position in Kansas there is little else in the article suggest that GNG guidelines are unconditionally met. I am therefore nominating the article for deletion to seek greater community input on whether or not it should remain here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on my first look at this, some clarifications are in order:
(1) Her name was Laura Nicholl when she became Kansas Commerce Secretary in 1991 [40] and when the governor removed her from office in 1992, officially because of unauthorized overseas travel but also possibly due to a political dispute between them. [41][42][43][44] She became Laura Owen when she married former Kansas Lieutenant Governor Dave Owen after he served a short prison sentence for tax evasion in 1994 (President Clinton later pardoned him). [45]
(2) She was not "elected" as Commerce Secretary: if she had been, it would be a strong argument for her notability under WP:POLITICIAN as the holder of a statewide elected office, but in Kansas this position (head of the Kansas Department of Commerce) is an appointed post.
(3) There is at least some significant coverage of her tenure and controversial departure from that position. In addition to the sources noted previously, see also [46][47]. Is this enough to establish notability under our customary standards for state officials? At the moment I'd say it's marginal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we normally keep members of any state legislature. I see no reason not to extend that same notability standard to the state Secretary of Commerce.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:21, 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 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar (Tamil militant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Akbar (Tamil militant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was not a member of a state military. Cossde (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources appear to be both independent and reliable. This is a puff piece based on propaganda press. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:08, 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, NorthAmerica1000 00:08, 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 Cambridge University Students' Union. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Law Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cambridge University Law Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've searched for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources but I'm not finding anything so it fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from Cambridge University. It was nominated for deletion way back in 2006 but none of the arguments for keeping the article demonstrated notability and the standards for inclusion have improved significantly since then. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete - They haven't done anything.Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No press releases or valid evidence of attained notability, nor are multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) locating anything that is. This article fails the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. Conyemenam (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck a duplicate !vote above. NorthAmerica1000 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (soft delete): Having three entries in an external links section does not references make. It seems to me that an article with no references would be a prime candidate for a speedy. I would never want to be considered a "Deletionist" (I think it is called) because I feel an article should be on Wikipedia on merit of the policies and guidelines, of which notability is a prominent factor. Longevity is not a major reason for keep. One thing I am against is using "External links" (against policy and long consensus) to create an article and then "acting" like that is a reference or source. "IF" this article has information in an external links section that can be used in the article and referenced then do so or at least create a General reference section. If the article is not notable enough since 2006 to generate "some" interest, hanging around with multiple tags about references of which there are actually zero, then how notable is it? I didn't look at how long but one of the external links is even formatted wrong.
"What links here" has a list dominated by deletion entries. Michael Mustill, Baron Mustill (What an appropriate title name!) has an unreferenced link to this article, Rona Fairhead at least does have a reference. List of social activities at the University of Cambridge lists the article but would you believe the only reference there (at all other than external links) is only for one activity out of many. University of Surrey Students' Law Society (an actual referenced article being considered for Afd) only has a "See also" section back to here and Per Incuriam redirects here.
Logic: Over 8 1/2 years ago this article was kept (9 to 1) through Afd. Concerns were not noteworthy and "verifiable evidence for this assertion, like reports from the local or preferably national news". The only actual positive comments for keep was "Give the editors a chance to improve the article.", and "It is one of the oldest and largest societies from Cambridge University, and such a history should be recorded, acknowledged and appreciated!.", be the creator. Five editors chimed in with "keep and rewrite" (or "Per comments above") but the reasons were actually inadequate per policies and just a vote.
Working on 9 years later we have a 2nd Afd with the same issues. The creator who started the article because "Oxford Law Society pointed out their page to us. So we thought we would follow suit.", was a past President (WP:CONFLICT), and stated "I made it sound self-congratulatory because... it was my baby, right?". Surely"! an organization that has been around since 1800 would have some coverage per Wikipedia policies and guidelines for an article, There are reportedly 751 registered societies at Cambridge and many have articles. What makes this society stand out for a separate article on Wikipedia? Maybe it should just be a redirect to a section in Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge or if that prominent in a section of the Cambridge University article.
Conclusion: An article should not be kept by a "vote" because it is important, liked, or any of the various "opinions" given in the first Afd. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. This might not be popular but nonetheless correct and it really would not matter how many times we "relist" it or seek outside input. A bunch of editors wanting to keep an article "just because" becomes a local consensus which cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
In view of this (my opinion) a soft delete, with instructions to to rectify valid deletion concerns if undeleted, maybe even following Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, would be proper. An alternative would be to merge the information "somewhere" and who would want to undertake that considering all the current comments? Maybe we can start a precedence for other "like articles"? Otr500 (talk) 12:41, 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 delete. Sandstein summed this up as well as anything I could say. SpinningSpark 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats[edit]

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated this article for deletion because it seems non-notable. There is lack of interest from third-party sources. 86.158.182.11 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – like the Sarah Brown AfD, I should point out a conflict of interest; I am a member of the group up for deletion. However, the group is directly notable on two occasions, both relating to anti-LGBT censorship: [48][49]. The group is also notable for proposing an equal marriage to the party in the first place, which eventually became government policy and then legislation. Sceptre (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News search reveals LGBTory (116) and LGBT Labour (136) are not gaining significantly more coverage than LGBT+ Liberal Democrats (75). Deleting the pages of all LGBT groups for major parties in the UK doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for deleting these articles too, then, not for retaining this one, see WP:WAX.  Sandstein  09:20, 31 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, Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. BenLinus1214talk 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY, and lacks multiple independent sources. As for Excesses, you haven't made an argument you've just stated that it "doesn't seem like the sort of thing Wikipedia would want to do." I'd appreciate if you could cite a policy, guideline or essay as to why you think the article should be kept. Thanks, Pishcal — ♣ 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:GNG - even after two weeks of AfD there is no third-party source cited in the article itself. The two short articles linked to by Sceptre are a bit borderline, they are about minor controversies or incidents in which the group was involved, and not the sort of coverage on which we could build an article about the group itself. If better sources can be found, such as third-party coverage about who they are and what their goals are, there'd be a much better case for retaining the article.  Sandstein  09:19, 31 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.  Sandstein  09:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Saffron Bandit[edit]

Exercise Saffron Bandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable military exercise, these sort of things happens all the time and a rarely notable and we have no indication this is anything special - prod removed with accusation of drive-by-tagging MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is satisfied if there are sufficient sources for the subject and I can find a range of sources for this. It's a vague nomination and it hasn't been explained what makes a military exercise "non-notable". Mar4d (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sources are not an indication of being notable, the military do exercises all the time it is part of the routine of military training and hardly encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly nothing like the multi-national red flag and as a recurring exercise is still not notable just part of the day job of being an air force. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:43, 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, Rcsprinter123 (gas) @ 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Iconcur with Milborne. Excercise are run of the mill, unencyclopaedic, (unless somethinghappens because of one that is notable in it's own right), and non-notable.WP:GNG, notnews, etc.etc.--Petebutt (talk) 18:46, 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 delete. Wifione Message 13:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Price[edit]

Kevin Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So...he's a radio host and likes to write autobiographies. Sourcing is primary and weak for a BLP, looks like it falls short of WP:GNG (note this has had longstanding COI issues since creation, as noted on the talk) Widefox; talk 21:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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, Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of the article. What happened is that one of my children read this article and noticed that it needed additional "help" and he decided to do it on my computer and surprise me with them. Those were the sources he found. The article has existed (I think) for around 10 years. I'm an author, frequent guest on major media, writer for Huffington Post, etc. I apologize for any violation we may have made of your terms of use. It was not intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.12.190.96 (talk) 17:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sail Training International[edit]

Sail Training International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtfull notability and a smell of advertising The Banner talk 01:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NGO - I have added more sources and rewrote the intro. International non-profit organisation with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:21, 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Long-standing charity whose work has been noted internationally. I note also that its chairperson received an OBE in 2013, summarised as "President and chairman, Sail Training International. For services to charitable services."[50] which I think goes beyond WP:NOTINHERITED in indicating a fundamental link to this organisation. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 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, Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is an International charity and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. I don't think this belongs in the "deletionists" list. I placed an infobox and some references. I do not think 29 countries leaves a lot of doubt on notability. As far as I can find this is the first and only sailing organization (organisation) in China. I usually have no problem spotting advertising so I suspect I could have sinusitis. I guess an example would have to be pointed out. Otr500 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NorthAmerica1000 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yosi Sergant[edit]

Yosi Sergant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is devoted in bulk to one episode in this person's life that reflects negatively upon him. Without that the subject is simply not notable, so it warrants deletion under WP:BLP1E. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I agree that this article is a piece of shit, placing undue emphasis on a single moment in the subject's biography, it does not follow that this is a non-notable subject. See, for example "Yoshi Sergant and the Art of Change" (LA Weekly); "No Longer at the NEA, Yoshi Sergant is Back Among the Artists" (Fast Company); and evidence of importance in the artistic community as a speaker at Convergence 2014. Passes GNG, this aside from the fact that his targeting by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and removal from the NEA was national news in the United States. The fact that an article sucks is not a valid reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:30, 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, Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 21:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice towards an early re-nomination in case sufficient reliable sources aren't added in the coming future Wifione Message 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Banjavich[edit]

Mark Banjavich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he has significant enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. Patents and book mentioned are evidence of notability to other people not MB. Just reads like anyone's LinkedIn profile--Mevagiss (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is this [51] which has significant coverage of the subject. There are other mentions of him in Google Books. Granted the article is in a sad state, but for his era the coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The amount of independent coverage is minimal, although it does certainly exist. The article would have to be most likely rewritten if kept. CarnivorousBunnytalk • contribs 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 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, Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 21:44, 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 Move. to J. M. Howell. I appreciate Xymmax's concern, but a confused history is not a valid deletion rationale. SpinningSpark 23:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Park Uptown Dallas[edit]

Howell Park Uptown Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously nominated for deletion as non-notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howell Park, Uptown. More sources are present, but as AfD was active when I accepted, I'll raise this for AfD again. (@AMLNet49 and Bearian:) --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Park is the most well documented historic district in Dallas. I have provided historic reference points over the course of more than 100 years via the sources I've cited. Howellparkuptown (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This looks like a good start to a biography of J. M. Howell, but doesn't appear to say anythign about the neighborhood. Suggest the page be moved to J. M. Howell. If Howell Park is truely "the most well documented historic district in Dallas" it shouldn't be hard to find some references about the district itself. As near as I can tell, it isn't even designated a Landmark District by the city, unlike nearby State Thomas, Dallas, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article describes Howell Park's location, history, ties to the development of the City of Dallas and includes references to the 100+ year old trees that were planted by Howell and still present today. The area is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description which is a reflection of the long standing recognition of Howell Park. (Dallas Central Appraisal District) State Thomas is a Landmark District where all the "landmarks" have been torn down and replaced with apartments, hardly a fair comparison though it has made for good marketing. You will not find historic references to "State Thomas" as it didn't exist prior to the real estate development of the 1990's. However, the references provided show period maps depicting Howell's original settlement of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howellparkuptown (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not seem to understand the point. Every reference you have provided is about Mr. Howell. This is, in theory, an article about a location not a person. The references go towards establishing the notability of the person, but do nothing to establish the notability of the place. That the area is legally defined is hardly proof of its notability. If there is nothing else to say about the area other than its boundary and that it is named after Mr. Howell (who once planted a tree there), there is no reason for a standalone article. Those two sentences can easily be covered in the Uptown article. That said, you haven't even provided a reference to show the area "is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description". If you have one, please provide it, as it would help determine of the area does indeed have notability.
Everything else you wrote is about State Thomas, and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to J. M. Howell per the suggestion of ThaddeusB. However, the article will need some serious improvement to avoid deletion altogether (which would be my second choice). Primefac (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:20, 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, Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Repurpose as an article on Howell., as suggested above. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to using these references to restart an article on Howell. While I appreciate the effort that has been put into this article, the edit history would only be confusing in a biography; I think a clean start is more appropriate.Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NorthAmerica1000 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Castle[edit]

Stephanie Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP, with heavy overtones of promotional rather than encyclopedic presentation, of a writer and activist with no particularly strong claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, for either endeavour. As written, the article relies entirely on primary sources for anything that's actually about her — the few appropriately reliable sources are not about her, but instead are supporting a coatracked section about other things that an organization she was involved with happened to get involved in. In addition, I've done a ProQuest search and found that there aren't sufficient sources about her to salvage this article with — her name gets just six hits across 20 years, and she wasn't the subject of any of those hits, but was the author of two of them and merely a quote-provider about other things in the other four. That simply isn't enough coverage to claim WP:GNG, and nothing in this article gets her over any of our subject-specific inclusion rules either. Neither writers nor activists are entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can point to primary sources to prove that they exist; it's coverage in reliable sources that gets a person in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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, Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 21:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not notable as an author--very few library holdings, and some of her works are self-published. There does not seem to be substantial evidence for any other basis of notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability sufficiently. Becky Sayles (talk) 01:00, 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 delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasantha Abeywardena[edit]

Wasantha Abeywardena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONEEVENT - this person's only claim to fame is that he was killed in an air crash. Also fails notability guidelines under WP:MILPEOPLE as he was only a squadron leader. The crash itself might pass notability and warrant an article n which case this individual's biographical info could be included in that article. obi2canibetalk contr 18:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if the article fails the aviation guideline for notable crashes (which I believe it does); military crashes have a higher standard than civilian. Fails MILPEOPLE. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the person in question as gain much attention in the local media, [52], [53], [54]. Cossde (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Those are just routine announcements of a crash investigation and a line or two about the president paying last respects to the officer. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event has no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 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, Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Specifically, there is no consensus in the discussion on whether the award is notable enough to provide notability according to WP:PORNBIO. No prejudice against trying again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Valentine[edit]

Angelina Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncelebrated pornstar who fails WP:Pornbio. Her only awards were XRCO's one-time "Deep-Throat Award" and Tranny Award's "Best Non-Transexual Performer," which has no competition because few straight performers have sex with trannies. She has no mainstream appearances. She has not appeared in any breakthrough blockbuster flicks. Her one unique contribution was being the first cisgender to have sex with Kimber James, but that distinction is hardly worth recognizing. Finally, the lack of reliable sources makes her fail WP:GNG Redban (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to keep an article like this.--TMD Talk Page. 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TMDrew: Could you be more descriptive about what "an article like this" means? Could you give WP guideline related reasons? Dismas|(talk) 06:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 16:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I doubt that it's fair to say that the Tranny Awards "Best Non-Transexual Performer" has "no competition because few straight performers have sex with trannies"...that sounds merely like a personal opinion. I'm not enough of an expert on transgender adult films to know whether or not those specific award ceremonies (or that specific award category) are "well-known and significant industry awards" though. I'm also not aware of any truly unreliable sources that are currently in this article as of this posting here. Guy1890 (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO; she won an XRCO award & a Tranny award, which are well-known and significant and not scene-related/ensemble categories. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her awards = The Tranny Awards is relatively new (2008 inception), and the "Non-TS Performer" has gone to the same person (Christian XXX) 3 out of 6 times, making me believe that the competition is tepid, or Christian XXX just really knows how to work with a Tranny on-screen. Look here: http://www.theteashow.com/tranny-awards-2009-winners/, The Tranny Awards picks its winner using a panel of 6-judges of questionable credentials, such as bloggers, forum users, and interviewers. They use fans to decide the winners, in other words. Thus, I do not find it reasonable to consider a Tranny award as "well-known and significant." As for XRCO's award, this award-ceremony may be significant, but "Best Deep-Throat" is not. If she had won for "Female Performer of the Year" or "Best Actress," for example, then you would have a case. But we cannot legitimately vote "Keep" on the basis of her deepthroating prowess. Again, for the sake of Wikipedia's legitimacy, let us not keep pages based on someone's "Deep-Throat" prowess. Redban (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO, since the "Tranny Award" doesn't contribute to notability per prior discussions (it's given by a production company to promote its own business), and the "Deep Throat Award" is insignificant, just one of a number of awards from XRCO like "Superslut" and "Cream Dream" with no discernible selection criteria. No reliably sourced biographical content -- in fact, no biographical content at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Tranny Awards are organized by Grooby Productions. According to Angelina Valentine's IAFD page, she has never worked for Grooby Productions, so they're obviously not promoting their own business in any way by giving her this award. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bogus awards like this should not protect BLPs that lack the required standard of sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above Rebecca1990 --Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability standards for this occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Rebecca1990. Dismas|(talk) 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the deletion rationale is basically a not particularly brilliant example of wikilawyering. No particular feelings about Tranny Award, but the XRCO Award is definitely both well-known and significant. Cavarrone 09:07, 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, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above - Passes WP:PORNBIO. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's won awards from award shows notable enough for their own Wikipedia page and she's quite popular in porn. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Won individual awards. Thus passes first criteria of PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:44 CET.
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. 14/18 sources cited are routine coverage announcing award nominations or wins. The remaining ones are database entries cataloging film a appearances and partners, or only mention the subject briefly ([55]). The only source left [56] is a primary source where she identifies her sexuality. Further investigation reveals no indication of notability. Becky Sayles (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the bombardment of sources, most of them are purely routine, brief mentions, or not independent. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of mention in reliable sources in fatal to notability per the GNG, and the industry award lacks notability such that being a recipient grants notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:59, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_December_23&oldid=1142629496"