Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep. Talk pages don't go through AfD. Stickee (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cultural Marxism[edit]

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

I nominate this entire page for deletion. This controversy has gotten completely out of hand and I move that we delete it and act as if it never happened. Enough of this. Sparki ^*SmokeWeed!* 04:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.instrumentalcasting.com/viewmusiciang.php?serial=750". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Kang (cellist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: "Can't find references attesting notability." Eeekster (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - looks like this article was previously deleted under G12 and has been so marked again. Eeekster (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kolby Granville[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Consern was: "non-notable local government official; based on the username, this was created as advertising." Eeekster (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:56, 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 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City councillors are only deemed to pass WP:NPOL in global cities with populations in the millions, not in cities with populations of 160K — and the volume of sourcing here isn't nearly enough to claim a WP:GNG pass instead. Also WP:COI issues, given the creator's username. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is pretty clearly COI and covered by the rule for city council members. Which of course the subject was unaware of when he created the page. However, I'm not convinced by the rationale for the rule on the Talk page, and think he has a point about the number of constituents represented. This could be discussed somewhere. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 13:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Charles (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - We ain't a directory of bus routes. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The page is remarkably well-sourced and so obviously isn't OR. It doesn't have enough historical perspective and so might be merged with bus transport in Singapore, pending a better treatment. I can't see any reason to delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are dozens of lists of bus routes for major metro transit systems around, so that pretty much spikes WP:NOT, which doesn't really apply. I've NO idea how anyone could think an article with 143 sources is OR, none. I agree there ought to be a lot more meat on the bones here, but that's a content problem, not a notability problem. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's an essay by that name, and even if it was enforceable policy--- which it ain't--- the concept's BS. Precedent rules Wikipedia. High schools aren't notable because they come with reliable sources, they're notable because a hundred AfDs on high schools closed with Keeps. Geographical locations are kept not because they meet SIGCOV, but because a whole bunch of AfDs just stipulated that they had to exist. Actually I was wrong: there aren't dozens of lists of bus routes for metro areas. There are hundreds. [1] Want to file AfDs on them because bus route lists aren't notable, knock yourself out. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research because it is compiled from primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source which is supposed to be written mainly from secondary sources. It specifically fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material.Charles (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find substantial secondary sources such as the TransitLInk Guide or Singapore Bus Guide. As for obsessive transport minutiae, how about this long disused transport route? The nominator seems quite content to document the detailed twists and turns of that numbered route and so, per WP:SAUCE, should not be attacking the similar work of others. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would consider Roman roads of encyclopedic interest. They don't make them anymore.Charles (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first belongs to a statutory board of the government; the second seems to be a publisher of maps - if sources such as that are evidence of notability, would lists of streets in each UK county also be acceptable? Peter James (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misreading WP:OR, Charles. It explicitly states that primary sources are okay to be used for straightforward declarations of fact, and that they're only disallowed if you try to draw an analysis from them. Using a primary source to state that the 22 Bus services X route is exactly the sort of straightforward, non-controversial fact that OR permits. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources may be used to cite specific facts in otherwise secondary sourced articles but compiling whole articles from primary sources is original research. Per Wikipedia:No original research "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."Charles (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's in there too; I'm glad you've now read the guideline. How about reading the list of sources in the article now, where you'd see that they're not all from SBS Transit? There are several news articles in there. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I can see to indicate significant independent coverage outside the local area as required by WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's another widely believed fallacy. GNG doesn't say anything of the sort. You might be confusing it with WP:GEOSCOPE, which refers to events. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per reasons given by Nha Trang DCB1927 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: - saying "Keep per Nha trang" is no different than you saying "Delete per nom". You're endorsing another editors view. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dusti: - The user originally put Keep with no reason, I made the above comment and so he expanded on his reason after (I wished he actually put the reason underneath as opposed to above but I didn't see much point causing a fuss... )–Davey2010 • (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actioned DCB1927 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reasons been given below Gemsdare (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating "Keep" without providing a legitimate reason won't help your case with keeping it, Editors are expected to put a better reason forward than simply putting "Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a need to delete this page as same goes to other page that related to this page also. Gemsdare (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both users directly above had wrote "Keep" without providing any reason [2] [3], After I made them aware of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Arguments without arguments they both then amended there comment (As said above I wish they added there reason below my reply as opposed to simply changing there comment but didn't wanna cause a fuss - They provided a reason after me nagging so left it at that.) .... I hope that's cleared the confusion :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a variant on the theme I'm seeing with UK bus company articles with Charles and Davey. Their collective belief of what is and isn't notable in the field of bus transport seems to be extremely ill-informed, and their views seem to be more based on an inherent dislike of the idea that Wikipedia should contain any bus related information at all. Purely because of my job I'm more familiar with UK buses (or "bus fan" as they prefer to insultingly refer to it as) than Singapore, but I do know that, because of the history and size of the place, much like Hong Kong, it gets much more attention than you would expect of just a similarly sized piece of a larger country. Indeed, like Hong Kong, it gets a lot of coverage in UK publications because a lot of the output of the UK bus manufacturers has historically, and indeed still does through Alexander Dennis, end up there. And from what I understand, their bus route network is every bit as centrally planned and crucial to the smooth functioning of the city as London's is, meaning it gets a lot of coverage about that aspect alone, just like London does. Their issue seems to be that they simply don't realise that, for buses at least, most of the quality coverage is not on the internet, it's in the print media. As much as they might personally dislike it, frankly, if it's popular enough that people can get paid to write books and magazine articles about this sort of stuff, then it's not unimportant trivia or uninteresting to an encyclopedia. Statement like "We ain't a directory of bus routes" (when as seen, the site has countless lists of bus routes) and "Only people with an obsession with transport minutiae would think this is encyclopedic material" are frankly astounding in their ignorance of the real world coverage that exists of the various different aspects of bus transport, from vehicles to operators to yes, even routes in some cases. I have absolutely no doubt, not one shred, that neither Charles or Davey have ever once stepped foot in the transport section of a library or looked at a single magazine focussed on buses or bus transport. Their objection to this sort of material seems wholly irrational or dogmatic, rather than being based at all on the facts on the ground. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One slight admission here and Charles knows this too - ... I am a bus enthusiast and I do know rather alot about buses ... Just because I like buses tho doesn't mean I want to keep every bus-related article on here - there are ALOT and I do mean ALOT of bus enthusiasts on this site who always nominate & delete articles, Again pack it in with the commenting on myself & others.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have more than good reason to disbelieve these claims - see the NIBS deletion page for full details. And I'm sorry if you're taking it personally, but there's not really any impersonal way that anyone can say 'ignore person X because they don't know Z'. Due to the way you present your case, I really have no choice but to frame my objections based on your lack of knowledge of the subject or the sort of interest it gets in the printed media, which are of course inherently personal traits. If you don't like this, then rephrase your objections to these articles into one that is based on indisputable facts, the interpretation of which doesn't require consideration of your personal knowledge/experience/past actions. In other words, stop expecting other people to believe you just because you say they should, and start backing it up with some indisputable facts and logic (an example of an illogical thing to say is Wikipedia "ain't a directory of bus routes" when, as has been pointed out, Wikipedia has plenty of such lists). Notforlackofeffort (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:Other stuff exists.Charles (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, you've edited bus route articles yourself. What makes a list of buses of a national capital not notable, but London Buses route 82 is okay? West Midlands bus route 50? London Buses route 8? (Heck, you've edited on a couple dozen London bus route articles yourself. How do you figure they pass NOTTRAVEL?) Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG; also per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Greater Manchester and others (I disagree about NOTTRAVEL - that seems to have been intended for itineraries, recommendations, reviews, and general travel advice and information, rather than excluding lists just because they are related to transport, which can be used for travel, rather than other subjects such as politics or music - also as it would be absurd to exclude information because "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" and simultaneously declare it unsuitable for a travel guide). If there were several examples of coverage in reliable sources (beyond official records/announcements or the operators' own sites) or numerous notable routes it would be a more suitable list, but currently there's nothing to distinguish it from the deleted lists - "national capital", "major metropolitan areas" are not reasons to keep, only evidence of bias. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I was going to close this but I don't want my weekend marred by the inevitable DRV. Closing rationale: "Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for deletion: indiscriminate directory-style entries (NOT#DIR), lack of notability (GNG). Strongest policy and guideline-based arguments given for retention: verifiable (WP:V) and reliably sourced." --slakr^\ talk / 09:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons explained above by other editors Transasia07 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources is not overwhelming, but consensus is that the article squeaks by.Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Camp Music Festival[edit]

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

Advertising. Articles based on links to nowhere or dead links from the festival organisation itself. No independent sources conform WP:RS. No indications of audience size, so doubtful notability. I have been cleaning up the article, but what is left is a single line up list with a lot of links going to the wrong targets. The Banner talk 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After a quick Google search I have found several articles from independent sources that show this events notability. This event has 20,000 to 25,000 attendants and has been going on for over ten years. Also, I would like to know what part of the article the nominator considers advertising, it is largely just a list of the artists attending with no obvious promotional language. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is only after a massive clean up. But with no independent sources plus an obvious COI, I consider it advertising. The Banner talk 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, do you not consider the sources I gave to be independent? Also what is this "obvious" conflict of interest you refer to? I see no evidence that any of the editors that have edited the article being personally involved with the event. Sure the article in its current state is still rather poor, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no independent sources. About the COI: worked the show and saw Backyard Tire Fire perform the noon set on the main stage on Saturday., edits by Jgee design and several others. The Banner talk 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that there may be a possible COI going on with some of the editors here, but what exactly is your reason for deletion if you accept my sources as valid? It passes WP:GNG as content does not determine notablity and it is currently written in a fairly neutral manner, not at all like an advertisement. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For starters because none of your three links is working. The Banner talk 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dunno. The Journal-Star link's a good one. The Washington Times-Reporter link is obviously a press release, and itself is a small town weekly with a miniscule circulation--- wouldn't count that as a reliable source. What the heck is "centralillinoisproud.com" Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like series of notable events, and it is covered by outside sources. The problem with the article is that it does not utilize those outside sources WP:SOFIXIT--TMD Talk Page. 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search for sources throws up a lot of hits. Most of them are passing mentions of notable bands playing there, but there are so many of them, that I think if you put them altogether, you've got enough content to pass WP:GNG. I have added a few news reports from the Peoria Journal-Star and a brief appraisal in Rolling Stone to help the article on its way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Mendiola[edit]

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

notability? appears self-published, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 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 20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any sources that aren't art(ist) directory-type sites. No references, some or the "external links" don't have coverage on him, http://www.detroitmona.com just has a blank page for him. German wiki article has no references either. Vrac (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please, keep in mind, that directory-type sites are not necessarily freely accessible to anyone, in many cases approval is needed before registration goes into effect.

Please, take into consideration that most artist pages in MONA website are blank yet, due to a shortcoming of the MONA website management. Please, see newly added links to The International Society of Assemblage and Collage Artists, where Mendiola is a registered full member, and to ars mundi, a renowned German mail order art business, which recently has added Mendiola to their catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budybla23 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Oh yes, I'm sorry about forgetting the signatureBudybla23 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear as notable via art sources. The latest book is held at all of 3 libraries (2 in the US) in WorldCat; although I also found a copy in a German library catalog. No listings in NYTimes or New Yorker, in spite of NY exhibits. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: Especially in NYC I bet more exhibitions (especially first exhibitions in the city) go unmentioned in the NYT and the 'New Yorker' than get mentioned. And after all: If one person comes up with a press clip from a NY paper or magazine, another person could say: 'Delete, because no US press coverage outside NYC', and so on. This is a good method to campaign but doesn't reveal much about the person in question, whoever this may be.Budybla23 (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote multiple times. Vrac (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet GNG, just being a competent professional is not sufficient to meet GNG. When this article was created 10 years ago, notability standards were still in flux.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Royale Academy[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet WP:NORG and the username of the creator suggests that this was written by someone representing the subject. The only thing that might be notable is its claim to have won a Queen's Award for Enterprise. But it's not actually listed among the winners. I can't find third-party verification for the claim. Even if that is true, it's not clear to me that it would automatically confer notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a COI is not sufficient reason for deletion. (Also the page was created 3 years ago and edited by many people since). The source backing the award in the article is behind a paywall, but its easy enough to verify: [4]. Secondary education institutes (which arguably is what this is) are almost always notable. A quick news search shows plenty of coverage for the institute to pass the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There are plenty of source, even small international one such as this. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per Thad's well-explained rationale. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing !vote, per well-raised issues below. Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Per ThaddeusB above, this institution passes notability. That the original author years ago may have had a WP:COI is irrelevant. The article is not spam.--Jersey92 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our generally accepted consensus that educational entities of confirmed existence at the secondary school level or higher are inherently notable. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking into this after reneging on my close. The only coverage for this topic in LexisNexis are repackaged press releases about students chosen to attend, naming the program in passing mention. LexisNexis classifies the top hits as straight-up "press releases". I see very little about the actual program, I don't believe enough to constitute sigcov, even for ORG. One Daily Times piece was titled "Millennials win placements at top summer schools", so it could have the "top" going for it, but even still, where is the in-depth sigcov about the program if it's so great? Nothing in Google Books, not even for "oxford royale" or "oxford summer school". And looking at the Google News linked above, the only hits are press releases and the rest are mentions... I see no case of passing the general notability guideline or any benefit from redirecting this to the larger Oxford. Perhaps most importantly, this is not a degree-awarding secondary ed institution—it's a summer program. Am I missing something? czar ⨹ 16:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All right, looks like this is happening. Courtesy pings: @ThaddeusB, I am One of Many, Epeefleche, and Carrite czar ⨹ 04:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't is a program run at Oxford (even if this program does not grant degrees)? --Jersey92 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This program is not affiliated with Oxford University. It's merely located in the city of Oxford. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Oxford Royale Academy's legal status is that of a private limited company, number 6045196 in the UK. Amongst other educational activities, during summer it hires the facilities of Oxford University and contracts with many of their lecturers and world famous speakers. The organisation recently acquired a substantial 17th Century educational campus of 30 Acres a few miles outside Oxford, from where it will be running A-Level (full-time/year-round) educational (secondary level) from January 2015 (see website at www.oxford-royale.co.uk/international-study-centre). It first started teaching year-round [secondary] courses leading to an A-Level qualification on a small scale in October 2010. Approximately 10,000 international students have taken an Oxford Royale Academy residential course since it was first founded in 2004. 900+ schools around the world send students to attend Oxford Royale Academy summer programmes. 50+ classroom subjects are taught by over 100 faculty (Summer) 30+ interactive online courses, professionally recorded by eminent lecturers, have recently been made available to students preparing for undergraduate study [www.oraprep.com] The company was awarded the Queen's Award for Enterprise in 2012, and the founders invited to attend The Queen's Award ceremony at Buckingham Palace, at which their contribution to UK export/international trade was acknowledged personally by Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Edward and various other members of the royal family, as a part of the annual ceremony. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] In August 2012 the Vice Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire, John Harwood, visited Oxford Royale to present the Queen's Award to meet the staff. [10] Students from over 90 nations around the world attend Oxford Royale Academy courses, making it one of the most culturally diverse summer programs in the world. The organisation is fully accredited by the British Council, and British Accreditation Council. The organisation is a member of English UK, Study UK, and the Council of British International Schools 47,000 people 'like' Oxford Royale Academy on Facebook. Scholarships are awarded to the brightest applicants from around the world.

Although perhaps not relevant, it may also be of interest that the educational articles posted on the Oxford Royale Academy website are cited numerous times on other wikipedia pages, for example: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Delete Like Czar, my initial reaction was to close this as a Keep but then I took a closer look. The problem is the lack of independent sources as much of the material seems to be based on press releases or other promotional material. Even the meanest primary school in the UK has quite lengthy and detailed independent inspection reports by Ofsted. The equivalent for this place is the British Accreditation Council but they don't seem to have a report on this summer school (the reference in the article is a deadlink so I checked the BAC site afresh). There are lots of places like this in London, Oxford and Cambridge, trading on the reputation of the universities and using their facilities in the summer. See Oxford Summer Courses for another one which is also at AFD right now. When we're routinely shutting out well-documented primary schools from Wikipedia, we shouldn't be letting in more overtly commercial establishments just because they sound grand. As a compromise, one might include them in a list like list of summer schools of linguistics but such a list would be a directory if the entries didn't have their own pages. Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Together you convinced me. The subject's name, location, etc. seem to have misled some of us. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and non-notable. The presumption that secondary and higher educational organizations are notable applies to degree-granting institutions, not to providers of short summer courses. I don't see any indication that this is particularly notable among such organizations. The "awards" are trivial & amount to PR -- cf. the number of awards annually for the Queen's Awards for Enterprise-- that PR is supported by governments does not make the PR a high distinction. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added some info about past guest speakers - seems like this company’s lecture series has attracted some attention from the skeptic community recently. Lots of blogs discussing Susan Blackmore’s speech and the subsequent walkout as well - does this count as “Factors that have attracted widespread attention”?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.205.109 (talk)
Delete I found a reliable source FAT CATS PROFIT FROM INTERVIEW TRAINING CAMP that pretty much establishes the Academy's non-notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In another article, the same newspaper makes mention of the organisation here [25] in relation to a donation by Oxford Royale Academy allowing for the reconstruction of an observatory at St Catherine's College, Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.72.214 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Party[edit]

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

A few passing mentions in the press, but not enough to satisfy WP:CORP. (Article deleted at first AfD was referenced only with party's website, and this version does include independent references.) Shirt58 (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with this deletion request. The party have not proven any importance or notability, do not have many third party sources suggesting importance, and there are not enough election results of any great worth/success to suggest they have much of a reason to be included in Wikipedia as a notable part of Scottish politics, let alone British politics. doktorb _words^deeds 16:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This minor party does not come close to satisfying notability standards for political parties. Safiel (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not have to satisfy WP:CORP which has nothing to say about political parties either explicily or implicitly. More significant is Wikipedia:Notability which states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Contrary to User:Doktorbuk's suggestion, the party does not have to prove any importance or notability; it is not its function. Wikipedia does that. And while there are not many third party sources that is hardly surprising given the dearth of coverage of minor political groupings in the media and elsewher. However, we do have The Guardian, Searchlight and the Electoral Commission which are entirely reliable. Emeraude (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one may or may not have less references immediately available than some others. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. This one did field candidates in elections, and there is coverage. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this campaign, like those others, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 18:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donagh O'Leary[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not appear to meet GNG. Looking at the page the subject appears to meet MUSICBIO but looking closer his role in the bands is very minor or the bands have very questionable notability. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Various notable bands are mentioned but he wasn't a core member of any of them - basically a hired hand it seems. The only band he seems to have had a central role in is Jesse James, whose main claim to notability appears to be that 'the "Shoes EP" was a hit in the UK'; It wasn't - the band had no hits in the UK. I could live with a redirect to Jesse James (band) for now, but I don't see that article having a rosy future. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the one reference is not a reliable secondary source. I don't see much else out there. Vrac (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Eastern University[edit]

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

Online "university". Prior searches for credentials show that it is not accredited by a major association for post-secondary schools; it is affiliated with a provider of online classes. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. In short, no more worthy of an article than any other group of people deciding to offer classes online. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there shouldn't be an article on this university, however, they appear to try to profit using confusion with Ohio University Eastern Campus, a respected institution. So, best instead to redirect to Ohio University Eastern Campus and semiprotect the redirect if the editor keeps trying to re-create. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the history of this unrelated school be kept, though? It's probably prudent to create a redirect from this title to the Ohio University Eastern Campus article—after deleting the online school's article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying if you don't have to delete, you shouldn't delete, and in this case, a redirect is more appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that leaving the history could cause confusion (this OEU is not the same as OUEC), so the history should be deleted. WP:R#DELETE goes along those lines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That thing about confusion means confusions for readers, not editors. And it won't cause confusions, since there will be a blurb on the talk page pointing here, where we're explaining it to everyone. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe redirection would be inappropriate in this case. Deb (talk) 09:29, 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 20:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Deb no redirect needed, and school does not meet notability. Currently as written the "University" seems to be trying to use Wikipedia to establish credibility. VViking_TalkEdits 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments...I have been looking for RS for this article. The only webpages I can find are either the school's social media sites, or the school's official webpage; which my anti-virus program is blocking me from opening. VViking_TalkEdits 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, but severe issues of ownership and spamming. We're not free ad space. Huon (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel College of the Bible[edit]

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

Non-notable institution, fails WP:GNG. The article largely relies on the college's own website and trivial mentions in other sources. Israel Today is a free throwaway. Only Arutz Sheva and Maariv are acceptable independent sources, though they only describe the opposition to the school. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christainity-related deletion discussions. 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was responsible for accepting this article via AfC. I would have thought that any degree-giving college with several hundred students would be intrinsically notable. I have added three book sources to improve the quality of the referencing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But those two newspapers did describe the school. The fact that these publications mentioned the school is an indicator of notability.--TMD Talk Page. 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources writing about the college because of community angst about it is at least as good of an indication of notability as said sources writing about something because they like it. (I.E. it shows a clear impact on the community if opposition to it rises to a sufficient level to warrant coverage, whereas writing positive stories does not necessarily show community impact.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this subject seems to have the basic refs that it belongs in Category:Messianic Jewish organizations and connected with Christian Zionism. While the nominator's points are well taken, however it would appear that the tone and intent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT are not good enough to request deletion at this time. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I don't understand why you are accusing me of nominating something per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have worked very hard to save other articles from deletion even though I don't subscribe to their belief systems. I reviewed this article for WP:DYK and noted that it was all based on primary sources except for the 2 newspapers that only speak about opposition to the college. Per our many AFD discussions for yeshivas, I knew that it needed independent sourcing to last on Wikipedia. More sources have subsequently been added by Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but unless I'm mistaken the sources need not have been in the article. They need merely have existed -- which a wp:before search should ascertain. Yoninah -- are you suggesting that you now agree with all the other editors that this is a keep? If so, you might consider withdrawing the nomination. Also, see Common outcomes; Schools, which is often referred to with college-level AfDs ("Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."). Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Per my above comments, and this having appropriate sources. Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Of course I tried to search for other sources before nominating this, Epeefleche. I was doing my best to accept it for DYK, but couldn't find other sources and didn't get any help in this regard from the page creator or the nominator. The new sources that Cwmhiraeth has added have definitely improved notability, and I hereby withdraw the nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I only raised the point because the nomination focused on what the article itself relies on, in terms of refs. And then your response to Izak also focused on the refs in the article itself. In any case, I believe per Common Outcomes that even with the refs then-existing-in-the-article, the common outcome of an AfD of a college article is to Keep it with such sourcing. Per Common Outcomes. Thanks for the withdrawal. Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teacher (film)[edit]

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

No references or claims of WP:Notability, external references are to Youtube and blogs. It does not meet WP:MOVIE. Since it is not yet released it is probably too soon for inclusion. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Soft Delete, per TOOSOON as this is "upcoming" and has not (yet) received the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Nigerian films are often harder to source than even older Indian ones. Apparently casting is complete,[26] and filming has begun,[27] but for an incomplete and unreleased film I can nothing (yet) to merit meeting WP:NFF paragraph 3. It may have enough to at least (for now) merit a mention in the article on its writer Chika Ike or its director Serah Donald Onyeachor. Allow recreation or undeletion once it can meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes. More participation herein would have been ideal. The rough consensus from what we have here is to redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Ghostly Girl[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. It's just another normal episode. Dcbanners (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give creator a week to create an article that conforms to WP:GNG. If not done by then, Redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes#ep29 and tag with {{R to list entry}}. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes (NOT #ep29) - Since we have a List of eps it may aswell be redirected there, I've chosen not to redirect to "#ep29" tho as it's unlikekly anyone will ever search for the episode names and if they do it may (or may not) be confusing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Mediacracy[edit]

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

Article of a podcast created by one it's hosts Chris McCaleb - Cmccaleb (talk · contribs) with no coverage. Sources include 1. spidvid, a websites blog. 2. Hollywood Reporter half a sentence mention. 3 and 4 are tech blogs, and 5 is its own website. Does not meet WP:GNG. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N due to lack of coverage by Independent Reliable Sources. The only real source listed at the article gives this subject only a passing mention. In a search I found nothing to add.--MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No references, and none to be found. Lovely article, but given the preponderance of SPAs I'm guessing WP:PROMO. LaMona (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Caste in Sikhism[edit]

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

Sources do not discuss Forward castes in this context. It is a peculiar list that tries to conflate two subjects that really have very little connection per se. Sitush (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified, unreferenced. And if Sitush says the subject doesn't work, I take his word for it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 04:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find sources which list and explain Punjabi/Sikh caste structures. Examples in English include:

The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies
Sikhs in Britain
Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia

The topic is therefore notable per WP:LISTN and should be improved rather than deleted per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding. General Caste means Forward caste, which is a government administrative categorisation in the Indian positive discrimination scheme. That is, this isn't some issue about traditional caste structures in India or elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that aspect just fine. The sources cover this point and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not. Find me some sources that lists the forward castes in Sikhism, a religion that only vaguely acknowledges that caste exists at all. In India, it is a Hindu concept although those of other religious beliefs, including Christians, are tagged with it due to the dominance of that creed. You certainly will not find a government source because there is no list. Furthermore, in past AfDs it has been noted that the lists of non forward castes (assuming we are trying to deduce who is forward by excluding those who are not) are ambiguous and inconsistent, with something over 1200 attempts at clarification by the various government agencies. This is the usual ARS nonsense: I've lost count of the number of times people involved with ARS have tried to rescue this sort of thing and every time it has turned into an argument about clue. And every one of those times it has turned out that they had none. You may be different, of course. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally closed this article as no consensus (NAC), but was asked to wait for an admin to close. Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caste system in India and write under Sikh. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is 90K and so, per WP:SIZE, should be split rather have more merged into it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed target has long been something of a mess but WP:SIZE is a guideline, not policy, and its subject matter is inherently complex and wide in scope. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is not based on any policy or guideline, just your personal opinion that the Sikh community and caste are not connected, which seems quite mistaken. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more understanding if you could demonstrate some knowledge of the Indian caste system, its relationship to Sikhism and its relationship to the modern legal classification system. We're joining disparate strands here just as sometimes happens with categories. As I said earlier, we need sources that discuss general castes in Sikhism as a topic and I've not yet found any. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three good sources above and you have failed to address them. Here's another source which, being fully available online, makes easy reading: Divisions among Sikh Communities in Britain and the Role of Caste System. This is an interesting account of the rivalries between Sikh castes such as the Rajputs, Jats and Ramgarhias and how this persists in their diaspora and causes them to set up separate temples. These castes are the stuff of this list and so we see them confirmed. The author, who seems to have no particular axe to grind, states "Sikh communities ... history cannot be fully understood without reference to the continued operation of the caste system." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : the regimental system of the Indian Army today & the British martial races theory was predicated on their existence. Keep but improve, well-referenced & free of trash. It's a socio-political reality despite the theoretical equality of Sikh religion. AshLin (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in a comment within the discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harpaxophobia[edit]

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

It's not clear that this is an actual medical condition, and the article does not cite any reliable sources. As noted at List of phobias, "A large number of -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name." Srleffler (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 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 19:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in medical handbooks and dictionaries since at least 1973. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per VMS Mosaic, easily sourcable, "the article does not cite any reliable sources" is not a valid argument for deletion, we have WP:BEFORE to avoid such type of arguments. Cavarrone 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection. It's not clear to me that the topic is notable, but the edits to the article have addressed the concern I raised so I have no objection to keeping it. My goal is removal of links to content-spam sites, and removal of articles on supposed medical conditions that exist only on such sites and internet word lists.--Srleffler (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neurostethic Acting[edit]

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

Does not currently meet the general notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like WP:OR. Couldn't find anything substantial to verify its notability. Harsh (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 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 19:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are zero sources on Google news, newspapers, books, and Scholar. WP:MADEUP? Bearian (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Nichols[edit]

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

Vanity page constructed exclusively of press releases and primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. Googling turned up absolutely nothing useful. The main contributors to the page don't look like SPAs to me, so I'm don't think this is a vanity page. But the subject certainly isn't sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Msnicki (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find much. She might have a weak claim based on awards but the Peabody went to the station she worked for, not her. I can't find confirmation for a regional Emmy that old. The Polk award is confirmed. Vrac (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - As Vice Chancellor, does she pass WP:PROF? Bearian (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's an administrative position. Google scholar turns up nothing in the way of citations of her scholarly work. Msnicki (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is one of 9 Vice-Chancellors at UT Knoxville so she wouldn't qualify on notability as an administrator.Vrac (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Replogle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article relies entirely on press releases and other non-notable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing has changed since my comments here. Mogism (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For lack of reliable sources. All I could find were social media sites and music/fan blogs. The "examiner.com" is not a newspaper but a fan site around art and music -- sort of a "huffpost" for those topics. The story of the sale of the statue is very strange - the artist's site doesn't mention it, and I can't find evidence in any reliable source. The story, originally on Replogle's site, got repeated frequently, but never investigated, AFAIK. The LA Times does note that the statue is in a private collection and that Replogle announced that it was for sale, but it is a brief mention and they don't confirm it. [28] Note that Replogle has a brother, John_Replogle, also on WP and also of questionable notability. LaMona (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bobroczky[edit]

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

I'd call this a case of WP:TOOSOON. Yes, he's really tall, but not that tall when compared to the tallest people; and yes, he might play for the NBA - starting in 2021. But as of now, the encyclopedic notability just doesn't seem to be there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that he may be notable someday, but at this point, it's just tabloid material. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. Notable only for record-setting physical characteristic for his age group. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rösch[edit]

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

This company doesn't look like it meets the notability criteria of WP:GNG. I assume the article exists because the company produces a laundry detergent named "Linux", which is amusing, but even in its country of origin this company and its products are, to my knowledge, mostly unknown. Sandstein 17:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Only 1 reference, which seems to be first party. It seems to be a list of products sold, rather than an actual article. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 18:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not anywhere near to the WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the family name rad mean[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Q&A site. This content should be merged with the corresponding encyclopedic article (if created). George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Possible speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2, this is an attempt to ask a question, not an article. Everymorning talk to me 21:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Everymorning. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Wikipedia is not "for primary research ... or defining terms". Imitch5 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Turkle[edit]

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

appears non-notable. Most of the sources seem to be passing mentions, as opposed to detailed and about him as an artist. There may also be some copyvio issues, but may be backwards copying going on as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete as hoax, ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer. JSTOR shows 0 mentions. Google Scholar shows only a single self-made reference inserted into World-Cat. I think we, and not only us, have been conned, starting in 2008. I suggest that impeccable art historian sourcing be consulted. The artist is not mentioned by the Metropolitan Museum's art history series encyclopedic review addressing the subject of Plastic in Arts: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/mome/hd_mome.htm . --Mareklug ^talk 17:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless better evidence of notability can be found. I searched for a while and had no luck. He's had about 5 pieces sell at auction in Sweden, which isn't very significant for someone who's apparently been an artist for over 40 years. The sources cited are evidence of particular 'facts', and not even of the claims that would indicate any real notability. As far as I can tell from searching, no critic of note has ever discussed him. Revent^talk 17:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ban. DS (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - especially per the research done by Mareklug and Revent. With the amount of time since the article was created notability seems to have decreased. MarnetteD|Talk 05:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading my appeal… Respected editors, I am appalled at this “synergistic hunt” that I believe was started when Mr. Revent wrote December 7th on the Proposed Deletions Page; it seems to have missed this page. It has been suggested by Mr. Revent that Webmeister1 and Tyler Turkle are 1 simply due to the fact that I (Webmeister1) uploaded images and placed into the “Source” category the words “Own Work”. I have just explained to Mr. Revent on his talk page that I did so because I believed I was to upload accurate information about the producer of the product who is Tyler Turkle - plain and simple. This is why I stated the source as "Own Work" because it is his "Own Work". If I was in error for doing so in this manner then I stand corrected, but to begin from that point to assume Mr. Turkle as a hoax is not right. To use words such as “ ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer” and that you “have been conned” are rather harsh and possibly harassment, especially having justified the words on such a basic user error. I implore you to reconsider this deletion you are proposing and to cease the defamation that seems to be continuing.

Extended content

Tyler Turkle Wikipedia Page

Earlier I wrote this experience as a “synergistic hunt” because of the snowball that started with my error in uploading to Wiki Commons. Mr. Turkle is an American Contemporary Artist and Filmmaker, and if you please take the time to review the sources and references I have provided on his Wikipedia page you will see that his work has been shown in many notable shows and he has produced many American Contemporary films.

Mr. Turkle’s work with plastic is unique. It is a painstaking many hours process of the flowing of multiple layers of plastic. It is this style of art that makes his technique most unique.

Respected Editors, I ask you, is it a dollar amount that must be met to make it to Wikipedia. How many pieces must an artist sell before their Wikipedia page is not banned? I dare say, but I must for my own sanity, I feel as though the efforts that have been put forth towards the removal of any and all of Mr. Tyler’s art, and now his Wikipedia page, is a slap to, and an attack on American Contemporary Art and Artists.

Banning this artist, as well as others due to some level of socially acceptable level of notoriety will only serve to “leash” future American Contemporary Artist who play such a wonderful and important role in holding us together as a nation.

Coatrack

There was mention that the Plastic in Art page that I (Webmeister1) edited was a “Coatrack”. Until this day I did not know what “Coatrack” was, but I do now. I understand now that the way I edited could be construed as that. I will work to provide a better product in the future. Thank you for understanding that not all Wikipedia Editors can be as proficient as you, we are learning.

I wish to work with you in amicably working toward restoring the pages that have been so unjustly removed.

Thank you for this consideration…

I will also post this to the undelete request page.Webmeister1 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Webmeister1: Please read WP:BASIC. Notability is not decided on the basis of value judgements by Wikipedia editors. Notability is demonstrated by the fact that multiple independent, reliable sources have 'taken note' of the subject, and is demonstrated by the fact that they have written about him in some degree of detail. If Mr. Turkle is a notable artist, then his work will have been written about by known art critics. Demonstrate that, and you have an article. All the other statements you made above are irrelevant to the topic at hand on this page. The image deletions at commons had nothing to do with the topic here, but were based on the fact that the particular works were themselves derivatives of copyrighted works, and thus not allowed on commons. Revent^talk 03:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Thank you for your expeditious reply. Reliable sources have recognized this American Contemporary Artist and Filmmaker and he is worthy of being recognized as an American Contemporary Artist. I am providing to you a list of reliable Individual Exhibitions, Group Exhibitions, Publications from know art critics, Bibliographies, public and Museum locations all of which have either featured, written about or exhibited Mr. Turkle's works. I appeal to the consensus to not permit the deletion of Tyler Turkle's Wikipedia page and to allow this American Contemporary Artist and Filmmaker to continue his page.
Publications

“Benny ‘Kid’ Paret,” Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo; NEW OBSERVATIONS, No. 46, March, 1987
“Artistic Anatomy,” BOMB, No. IIX, Fall 1987
“Recalling Psychedelia,” Carlo McCormick; HIGH TIMES, August, 1986
“Spiritual America,” CEPA QUARTERLY, Spring, 1986
“What is Black and Blue and Read All Over?,” NEW OBSERVATIONS, No. 28, 1985
“I Plead the Fifth,” EFFECTS : MAGAZINE FOR NEW ART THERORY, No. 1, Summer 1983

Bibliography

“Peeling Through the Layers,” Mary Ann Marger; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, Sept. 26,1997
“The Concept Is What Counts,” Mary Ann Marger; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, June 29, 1992
“Genetic Aesthetic,” CONNOISSEUR, June, 1991
“Buena Vista,” Dana Shottenkirk; CONTEMPORANEA, March, 1990
“Buena Vista,” Alan Jones; TEMA CELESTE, January/March, 1990
“Tyler Turkle – Plastic Water and The Last Criterion,” Craig Adcock; TEMA CELESTE, January 1990
“Review: Tyler Turkle,” Eleanor Heartney; ART IN AMERICA, January, 1990
“New York Scene,” Steven Kaplan; ETC MONTREAL, Winter, 1989
“David Carrino, Charles Clough, Tyler Turkle,” Tricia Collins and Richard Milazzo; BOTTOM LINE, December 1989
“Tyler Turkle,” Marjorie Welish; ARTS, December, 1989
“Review: Tyler Turkle/Greenberg Wilson Gallery,” James Lewis; ARTFORUM, December 1989
“New This Week – Tyler Turkle,” Amy Barasch; 7 DAYS, September 27, 1989
“The CABLE Gallery,” Gary Indiana; HG, April, 1988
“Exhibit Abounds With a Messy Vitality,” Christopher Hume; TORONTO STAR, October 3, 1987
“Nexus Show Gently Buries the Corpse of the Avant-Garde,” Pam Perry; CREATIVE LOAFING, January 24, 1987
“Modern Twists, Has Little Momentum,” Catherine Fox; ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, January 18, 1987
“Ultrasurd,” PARACHUTE, Winter 1986-1987
“Easy Pieces,” Gary Indiana; VILLAGE VOICE, December 22, 1986

Group Exhibitions

2006 “Currency: Art as Money/Money as Art,” Mary Brogan Musuem of Art and Science, Tallahassee, Florida – catalogue
2002 “Florida Photogenesis,” Southeast Museum of Photography, Daytona Beach, Florida
2001 “Florida Photogenesis,” Appleton Museum of Art, Ocala, Florida
2000 “Florida Photogenesis,” Florida State University Museum, Tallahassee, Florida – curated by Robert Fichter – catalogue
“Basel Art Fair Preview,” zingmagazine and Tricia Collins Contemporary Art, Basel, Switzerland
1998 “Fashioned,” White Box Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Suzan Batu and Bill Dougherty – catalogue
“Fashioned,” White Box Gallery, Philadelphia, PA – curated by Suzan Batu and Bill Dougherty
1997 “Bang! The Gun as Image,” Florida State University Art Museum, Tallahassee, FL – curated by George Blakeley – catalogue
“The Resonance of Paint,” Dunedin Fine Arts Center, Dunedin, Florida – curated by Genevieve Linnehan
1996 “Capital Film Festival," Miracle Theatre, Tallahassee, FL
1995 “44th Biennial Exhibition of Contemporary American Painting,” Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. – curated by Terrie Sultan – catalogue-essay by Eleanor Heartney
“A Vital Matrix,” Domestic Settings, Los Angeles, CA – curated by Jane Hart – boxed edition and catalogue
1994 “PUBER-ALLES,” Stedelijk Museum Bureau, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1993 “Tower of Babel,” HERE, New York, New York – organized by Troy Maier
“One of Us,” Kunsthal, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, – organized by Mark Wilson and Cokkie Snoei
1992 “Art Show,” New York Downtown Hospital, New York, New York – curated by Troy Maier
“St. Vitus On Ecstasy: Eco-MusÈe For Dance and Illness,” Suzanne Biederberg Gallery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
“Painterly Object,” S. Bitter Larkin Gallery, New York, New York
“Epigrams for the Mirror Blind,” Momentary Modern Gallery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
1991 “New Era Space,” New York, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo
“A New Low,” Claudio Botello Gallery, Turin, Italy – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
“Outside America,” Fay Gold Gallery, Atlanta, Georgia – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
1990 “All Quiet on the Western Front?,” Espace Dieu, Paris, France – organized by GÈrard Delsol and Antoine Candau – catalogue
“Pools,” Modus Vivendi, Zurich / Art Moderne, Moscow – curated by Nancy Jones – catalogue essay by Robert Mahoney
“Twentieth Anniversary Benefit,” White Columns, New York, New York – curated by Bill Arning
“Fragments, Parts, Wholes; The Body and Culture,” White Columns, New York, New York – curated by Saul Ostrow
“The Last Laugh,” Massimo Audiello Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo
“Joseph Nechvatal, Andres Serrano, Tyler Turkle,” Barbara Gillman Gallery, Miami, Florida – curated by Joe Jacobs
1989 “Buena Vista,” John Gibson Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
“Group Show,” Galerie Antoine Candau, Paris,
France
“Featuring Florida,” John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Florida – curated by Joe Jacobs – catalogue
“R.M. Fischer, Laurie Simmons, Tyler Turkle, William Wegman,” Greenberg Wilson Gallery, New York, New York
“Made in Florida,” University of South Florida Art Museum, Tampa, Florida – curated by Margaret Miller, Joe Jacobs and David Courtney – catalogue
“Science Projects,” Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania – curated by Janet Borden – catalogue
“41st Biennial Exhibition of Contemporary American Painting,” Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. – curated by William Fagaly – catalogue
“More Made in Florida,” Gillman Stein Gallery, Tampa, Florida
1988 “Traveling,” Althea Viafora Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Luis DeJesus
“Art At The End Of The Social,” Rooseum, Malmo, Sweden – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
“Life Like,” Lorence-Monk Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Marvin Heiferman
1987 “Modern Art Since 1984,” Nexus Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, Georgia – curated by Louise Shaw and Virginia Wright with Ron Jones and Robert Nickas – catalogue
“Art Against Aids,” New York, New York – curated by Anne Livet and Stephen Reichard
“Benefit Show,” White Columns, New York, New York – organized by Bill Arning
“The Glittering Prize,” Stux Gallery, New York, New York – curated by Bill Arning
1987 “The Atlanta Biennial,” Nexus Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, Georgia – curated by Alan Sondheim
1986 “Update,” White Columns, New York, New York – curated by Bill Arning – catalogue
“Ultrasurd,” S.L. Simpson Gallery, Toronto, Canada – curated by Collins & Milazzo catalogue
“Retroactive,” Hallwalls, Buffalo, New York – curated by Catherine Howe – catalogue
“Spiritual America,” C.E.P.A., Buffalo, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo
1984 “Still Life With Transaction,” International with Monument, New York, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo
“Still Life With Transaction,” Galerie Jurka, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
“New Capital,” White Columns, New York, New York – curated by Collins & Milazzo
1980 "New Orleans Triennial," New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, Louisiana – curated by Marcia Tucker and William Fagaly – catalogue
1978 Sherwood Oaks Experimental Film Festival, Sherwood Oaks College, Hollywood, California – Documentary Award
1977 Bellevue Film Festival, Seattle, Washington
1976 Independent Filmmakers Exposition, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York
1975 “Three Young Filmmakers,” Herbert F. Johnson Museum, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Penn State Film Festival, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
“Exchange: Dallas, Fort Worth/San Francisco, Oakland,” Fort Worth Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas
“Exchange: Dallas, Fort Worth/San Francisco, Oakland,” San Francisco Museum of Art, San Francisco, California
1974 Athens International Film Festival, University of Ohio, Athens, Ohio

Individual Exhibitions

2007 “Plastic History”, Gadsden Arts Center, Quincy, Florida
2006 “Tyler Turkle – Films and Videos”, Tallahassee Film Society/All Saints Cinema, Tallahassee, Florida
1992 “Plastic Criteria,” Contemporary Art Museum – University of South Florida, Tampa,Florida – catalogue
1991 “Curtains,” Greenberg Wilson Gallery, New York, New York
1989 “Last Criterion,” Greenberg Wilson Gallery, New York, New York
“Plastic Water,” Greenberg Wilson Gallery, New York, New York
1988 “Newest Criterion,” Greenberg Wilson Gallery, New York, New York
1987 “New Criterion,” CABLE, New York, New York
1986 “Plastic History,” White Columns, New York, New York Webmeister1 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but willing to reconsider. Emotional appeals and extensive lists of exhibits don't constitute significant coverage of the artist. Arguments for keeping must be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We need to see evidence of significant coverage of the artist (not just his works) in reliable, independent sources. That's all that matters. Other than the coverage in Press Democrat (that's a good source and good coverage but it's in the External links section, not used as a reference), what else is there? Would the proponent please explain what in the bibliography listed above constitutes coverage, more than a trivial mention of the artist, and more than a picture of a work in an exhibition? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for this opportunity. I do understand about "emotional appeals" it is just that I don't feel American contemporary Artists are being represented so it is important to me, sorry to have come out of the box that way. I am providing some additional coverage as you requested. I do appreciate this consideration.

Tallahassee Newspaper Review

Art show Review American Newspaper

Canyon Cinema Review

Oyster Boy Review

Canyon Cinema Salon - Recently Mr. Turkle was invited as the presenting Artist Filmmaker Webmeister1 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have two reviews in a low-circulation local paper, two pages on the website of a local theater (not reliable as the purpose is to promote their business, and arguably not independent since they're showing his films), and the oysterboy one is just a list of photographs. The Tallahassee Democrat pieces are decent coverage but I'd like to see something more significant than local coverage. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point my view to delete is unchanged. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you, I would like to provide additional evidence of coverage.

NOTE: For many of the Exhibitions I have listed above when they read "catalog" at the end that means that the coverage of Mr. Turkle has been cataloged and is available for review. Some can be purchased.

NOTE: Within the list of Collins & Milazzo Exhibitions Wikipedia page, Mr. Turkle is noted many times as having exhibited in their exhibitions.

Below are a few of exhibition catalogs that will show an excerpt of Mr. Turkle's presence in the catalog:

The 41st biennial exhibition of contemporary American painting, Corcoran Gallery of Art, William Fagaly

The 44th biennial exhibition of contemporary American painting, Corcoran Gallery of Art, Terri Sultan

Plastic Water – Art Magazine, Volume 64, Donald Sultan

“A New Low,” Claudio Botello Gallery, Turin, Italy – curated by Collins & Milazzo – catalogue
Webmeister1 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition catalogs are not independent sources because they have a relationship with the artist. And the Plastic Water magazine doesn't mention Turkle at all, as far as I can see. I don't believe you are understanding Wikipedia's requirements for evidence of notability. We need independent and reliable sources, preferably with an audience larger than a narrow niche, that provide significant coverage of Turkle. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Subject lacking significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources doesn't merit a Wikipedia article and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After researching the meaning of notability for living people as applied on several sample category pages (e.g. Florida State University Faculty, Kent State Alumni, or University of Mount Union alumni), it would appear that approximately every other entry should be deleted according the standards mentioned above. Also, the concerns raised do not seem to be severe according to the deletion policy, leaving me to wonder why they weren't first raised in the related talk page. I am by no means an expert on the editorial process, but this is confusing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycotn (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — Mycotn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Mycotn: You may find WP:OSE an interesting reading in this context. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find enough evidence on Google books to convince me that he exists (at least to the same extent Banksy exists: a name on some artworks with no personal detail behind it). And he appears to have worked with or shown with Serrano, who is unquestionably notable. But the only thing I saw that looked like nontrivial coverage of him (as opposed to announcements of showings, or one-sentence mentions in reviews of group shows) was this magazine article link that I can't actually read because it's only on snippet view. Being online is not a requirement for our sources, but evidence that one source exists (without the source itself) is not the in-depth coverage in *multiple* sources required by WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exists? of course he exists. Mr. Turkle's art and films have been in exhibitions, museums and shown all over the world. For an American Contemporary Artist this is an accomplishment. His art using the painstaking process of flowing multiple layers of plastic is unique. No one else uses this technique.

I would not say that these articles are nontrival as was suggested that nothing other than announcements of showings were available:
Canyon Cinema
FAb Four Art Show
"Last of a Kind" Film Review Webmeister1 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Giant Records (Warner). Sam Walton (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Records[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable and has been tagged as unsourced since 2009. It is a defunct ~~subsidiary~~ incarnation of Giant Records and has only a one line passing mention in 2-3 industry news articles. It does not require or qualify as a stand alone article and could be included in the Giant Records article should any sources be found. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giant Records. If sufficient sources can be found for the older label and article for it could possibly take this namespace. Artw (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind there are about a dozen articles linking to this topic. So whatever the outcome, those will have to be catered for. In case of a redirect, the article name should be mentioned on the target page so that readers understand why they are being redirected. --Midas02 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge warpozio (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm not sure yet. Check google books and news. There was an awful lot of chatter on Billboard between 1996 and 2002 regarding this label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
further comment. see [29] It wasn't a subsidiary, Giant Records was renamed Revolution Records in 1996. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from filing party--Merge is Ok with me too --- My initial reaction was to expand the article but when I saw there was no significant coverage in sources I did a blank and redirect to Giant Records since Revolution Records was already mentioned there (also without sourcing). My blank redirect was reverted so I've brought the issue here for the community to consider. 7826spin is correct that it became Giant Records, so all the more reason to combine these two.
- "In response, Azoff restructured his label, renaming it Revolution Records and bringing in Larry Jacobson to serve as president and handle day-to-day operations." -- Big Head Todd escapes label impasse, August 16, 2002 | Alan Sculley, Post-Tribune correspondent
- "They have added vocalist John Mullins and former Score bassist Phil "X Crace to record "Between the Lines on Revolution Records" -- Area Band Releases New CD, The Charleston Gazette (Charleston, WV), April 2, 2014
The above are the only two sources I can find on High Beam. Also editors should note that the Giant Records article is likewise devoid of any citations.---- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

further comment I think Keithbob meant to say Giant became Revolution, not the other way around. It should also be noted that Giant had numerous appearances on the most significant charts, and had multiple signed artists of not only notable but highly significant importance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giant_Records_(Warner), as it is the same topic, and the label had significantly more success under the original moniker. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rosen[edit]

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

This article is completely unsourced. While the subject appears to be notable, it is hard to determine based on WP's notability guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with nom - this person seems to be quite accomplished, but I can find no 3rd-party sources. The article itself has existed since 2008 (created by an SPA) without references. In some versions of the article great detail is given about family life that could only have been added by a close acquaintance. Other versions had extremely long bibliographies. He is the founder of a company [30] run by his sons. I can find evidence of his articles in GScholar, but they have very low citation rates. It seems like it should be possible to establish notability for this person, but I simply cannot. LaMona (talk) 03:26, 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, czar ⨹ 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography so it fails to meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Betoota Advocate[edit]

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

Mess of an article (part-hoax?) on a satire website that doesn't seem notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source coverage I could find was the ABC Mediawatch transcript of the story that Channel 9's Today Show fell for. That's not enough for the GNG which, for good reason, requires in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any significant ongoing coverage by anyone. Its not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Cabrera (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer, fails GNG and ATHLETE. Nothing out there to give him a standalone article; even redirecting should he end up signing somewhere may not be worth it. Wizardman 14:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--Yankees10 18:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per above - Obviously fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this when he was a member of the Pirates' 40-man roster. Obviously his career hasn't progressed to the point of notability, and while it may, it more likely will not. It can be recreated if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardiman[edit]

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

Clear vanity page about a non-notable individual using primary sources, self-authored pieces and other riff-raff. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. Just reads like anyone's LinkedIn profile--Mevagiss (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Vrac (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Sources are valid, easily verifiable and significant, such as testimony to Congressional committees as an invited subject matter expert speaking directly to members and taking questions under oath. Also relevance to ongoing conflict in Iraq. added by DesertRat16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat16 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Respectfully addressing comments above: a) the LinkedIn.com format has some similarities to bios, so not sure if that criticism is relevant, b) do not know what GNG means, c) NOTWEBHOST the page is not a blog or FB or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRat16 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GNG = General Notability Guidelines. WP:PSCOI might also be relevant reading. Vrac (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Florida[edit]

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

Per the article, this is at most an "informal" name. No useful content to merge. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida in the American Civil War. No viable content but perhaps a plausible redirect. Deadbeef 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 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]

Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing new here unlike the South Carolina and Mississippi. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - too little substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no basis for the article so even a redirect is problematic. No verifiable content to merge. Red Harvest (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also there is a recently created template that goes with several of the "Republic" pages: Template:Pre-CSA states that should be a related candidate for deletion. I don't see what the template adds since the pages it is on will likely soon be gone or redirected to the stat "in the American Civil War". There is already a template on each of the state "in the American Civil War" pages that lists these states and others in the CSA so this second template only adds clutter at the bottom of the page. Red Harvest (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, Red Harvest. I've nominated it for deletion as ell. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Republic[edit]

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

Per the article, this is at most an "informal" name. No useful information to merge. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was messed up as it flowed on to a deletion discussion about the Republic of Georgia (1861). That deletion discussion did not have a header, so some of the discussion there may apply to this discussion. I have added the header that now keeps that discussion separate, but those who understand the topic may want to add something here from the Georgia discussion.--Bduke (Discussion) 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 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]

Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or plain redirect per other nom flagged on page. Little worthwhile content. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly merge flag info, but the name "Republic" itself is still dubious and not adequately supported. Red Harvest (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written — attempting to elevate a colloquial name for a short-lived independent state to "Republic" status — with no prejudice against later creation of an article Secession of Alabama, which would be encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 03:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Georgia (1861)[edit]

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

Per the article itself, the only use of he term "Republic of Georgia" was by unidentified local printers on dates uncertain.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be discussion on deletion of these pre-CSA sovereign states (albeit unrecognized). If your point for deleting the articles is solely based on name, then discuss renaming, not deleting. For the 2012 country of Azawad, there is disagreement on the name. It doesn't mean you delete the article.—SPESH531 Other 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence/reliable source of the name in contemporary official use. The article has been up for 8 years without really changing the speculative/dubious nature of the name. Red Harvest (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there was anything sourced in the article, it would merit a brief mention in Georgia in the American Civil War. Otherwise, it is a redundant article. bd2412 T 18:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to have been lost at some point, so I've added it to today's AfD list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the same nonsense like what we had at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Louisiana. Neither this article nor the others on the chopping block should have been created. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Banjavich[edit]

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

The WP:SPA creator seems to be asserting notability on grounds of actor, writer, inventor and entrepreneur. I couldn't establish that he meets this criteria on any of these grounds, or all put together. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article about him but there's not enough coverage for WP:GNG. He also falls drastically short of WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the occupations in question is a notability freebie under which a person gets to keep a Wikipedia article just because they can be demonstrated to exist — they all have specific markers of achievement that have to be passed for a person to earn coverage on here, and absent that the only other path to an article is to add enough reliable sources to get them over WP:GNG. But neither of those conditions has been satisfied in this instance, and as written this article is dancing on the edge of being an outright advertisement for his business endeavours. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmistha Mukherjee[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN. She hasn't won any election. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Subject may meet the WP:NPOLITICIAN #3, WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as they appear to have significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, Zee News, The Hindu 1, The Hindu 2, The Hindu 3, TImes of India, Indian Express 1, Indian Express 2 DNA 1, DNA 2, Business-Standard 1, Busness-standard 2, First Post 1, First Post 2, Rediff, Sify, Hindustan Times, Deccan Chronicle, Deccan Herald, Telegraph India, etc. There are actually are many more (Jagran, click for more Hindi sources).

I request nominator to withdraw as the subject meet WP:NPOL criteria #3 that says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". They are also a renowned Kathak dancer and have received coverage for. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW @Anupmehra: thanks for searching the sources. I want to withdraw this nomination.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailao Family History[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY.– Gilliam (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think 'unencyclopedic' best describes this. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Blue[edit]

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

Dab with only two entries: this is why we have hatnotes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are more than two entries now. Would support moving to Powder Blue (disambiguation) with Powder Blue redirecting to Powder blue as primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab with 4 entires, WP:ATD found. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Valid dab now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewie Coyle[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTY. There are a couple of sources in the article, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. C 679 06:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Halifax[edit]

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

This article appears to be unverifiable, as a search for sources found nothing to confirm the existence of this person. I tried Google, Google Books, the British National Archives, the Internet Archives, and JSTOR and found no sources. At the very least Mr. Halifax appears to be non-notable. Note that this article was created back in 2005 by an IP and the article content has been essentially unchanged since then. Below are some of the places where the article's veracity appears to be in question:

The article claims William Halifax became the ninth Earl of Stirling in 1817. This is impossible, because the title of Earl of Stirling was vacant from 1739 onwards [31] and even in 1839, the right heir of the Earl of Stirling was still in dispute with a possible pretender.
The article claims William Halifax served as the Lieutenant Governor of St. Lucia in the 1820s. This is unlikely, as the title for the chief executive of St. Lucia was not termed "Lieutenant-Governor" until 1834 [32], before then the title was "Governor and Commander-in-Chief". Halifax is not listed among the governors of St. Lucia during the 1820s [33].
None of Halifax's supposed reports (Conversations with Sir William, Fifth Viscount Howe, K.B and General of the Army From His Time in Plymouth Concerning the Defense of England...) could be verified to exist, neither do they have records in WorldCat.

Besides all this, I find it suspicious that much of this article is based on "family legend", which is patently unverifiable in itself. I hope somebody will be able to find sources to prove me wrong, but I fear that this article may have been a long standing hoax. Altamel (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly, this is an elaborate hoax. Maybe, it is a retelling of family legends. But it is nothing we can keep in the lack of references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete Was unable to find anything that didn't ultimately seem to be sourced from Wikipedia, am inclined to agree this may not be a real person. Artw (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, looks like a hoax. Anyone as important as this article claims he is would have an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. He doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Meyerhoff[edit]

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), no third party sources, even created with the orphan tag, as though to merely fill a redlink Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar is a third party source and her google scholar link shows an h-index of 20, which is pretty much out of the ballpark for the humanities. Add to this the fact that she holds full professorships at two first-rate universities and appears to be being used as a poster-child for one of them. The worldcat link shows three separate books held by > 500 libraries (meeting Criterion 4). Maybe internet was on the blink when the nominator did their WP:BEFORE checks? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor of several very widely held major reference sources, and a standard textbook, which I added -- but I don't blame anyone for wondering at the notability on the basis of the original extraordinarily sketchy article DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of three major reference sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Stevens[edit]

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), except the use of the uncited word "notable" Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can I suggest that you withdraw the AfD, please, as per Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)? Schwede 66 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guideline given by user:Schwede66 a proposed guideline - unto itself this is not a reason to delete the article, but still not sufficient grounds to connote notability. I found a biography on terra.govt.nz, but if we go with standard WP:BIO this still becomes a primary source. We need more sources to establish notability and a quick Google search turned up nothing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this woman was a full professor at a large reputable university. She has an entire hall of residence named after her. She was notable (and extensively talked about) for being New Zealand's first female prof. She has a common name and her professional feats were performed before the internet age, that doesn't make her non-notable. See also refs listed in INNZ. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joan Stevens's [ viaf record] is broken (bad merge with US architect of the same name, reported at Wikipedia:VIAF/errors). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That we keep everyone included in their country's major reference work is not a failed guideline, it's one of the basic principles of inclusion in Wikipedia. that said, it does not help WP writing articles quite as sketchy as this, and expecting someone else to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have two pieces of evidence for notability that arguably are each enough for notability by themselves: DNZB, and CBE (note not OBE or MBE, which probably wouldn't be enough; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasmin Bevan). Put the two together and she's clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Joan Batham[edit]

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

no claim to notability per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), one off in a who's-who Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can I suggest that you withdraw the AfD, please, as per Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people)? Schwede 66 07:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a number of sources that describe her as a past president of the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the subject of an odd disappearance. Having connection issues at home, but will add some sources once I'm typing on something besides a phone. I found a number of refs by searching for Betty Batham instead of her full name. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I have thus moved the page. Schwede 66 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether we regard DNZB by itself as enough, the FRSNZ (which should be added, with proper sources, to the article) makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added sources related to the RSNZ. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance N. Hubbell[edit]

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

Despite having 26 citations, 100% of the ones I have checked were press releases, brief quotes as a media spokesperson, or do not actually mention the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 05:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a promotional biography. DGG ( talk ) 04

26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly-promotional CV with little indication of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mandy Chiang. Wifione ^Message 18:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Story (Mandy Chiang album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:notability (music) and WP:notability. Whether the album hit the Hong Kong charts or not does not make the album more notable than it already is not. No awards were given, no reviews from reliable sources covered this album, and the singer hasn't mentioned this album. Also, the songs of the album aren't that notable; if information of them exists, it belongs to the "Mandy Chiang" article. I don't know how the Chinese Wikipedia operates because it has its own version, but the English Wikipedia won't tolerate the existence of this article. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charting album by middle-ranking Hong Kong artist In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandy Chiang. Charting in and of itself doesn't make something notable without significant and independent coverage about the topic in reliable sources. With little to merge, a redirect is sufficient. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mandy Chiang. Not enough content for a standalone article, and much of the content isn't even in English. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four-quadrant movie[edit]

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

Little has changed since this article was 'prodded' almost a year ago.[34] This page is just a dictionary entry, with insufficient sources that describe the term itself. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've expanded it out of a dicdef to what I believe is now a viable stub. Deadbeef 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now appears to be an extremely well referenced article. Artw (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a real thing discussed in sufficient depth in reliable sources. Could possibly be merged somewhere but unless a suitable target is identified it should be kept. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin R. Donica[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. See WP:MILPEOPLE and article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 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 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coincidence of being the 3,000 American death in Iraq is not in itself enough to tip the scales of notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad stat, but still fails notability. EricSerge (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice towards any trusted editor redirecting after merging the contents, post a consensus on the relevant talk page. Wifione ^Message 18:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

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

If you came here because of Reddit or other Gamergate-related discussions, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

All significant coverage is only marginally about the person and primarily about 8chan/GamerGate (who have their own articles, of course). The only exception is about the thievery and his disease, which both seem ill-advised pillars upon which to build an entire article (per WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM).

Keep in mind that the fact he is interviewed as a significant voice in the Gamergate/8chan situation may mean he is a reliable source for his opinion(s), but does not mean he is directly notable.

A secondary possibility would be a merge to a paragraph in the article about his definitely notable project, 8chan. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 8chan. Doesn't seem particularly notable apart from the site, agree with the nom's assessment of the article's sources. Doesn't have the coverage level of Zoe Quinn or similar to warrant an article on Gamergate. Would have suggested a merge to 8chan but the article seems to already have him (and the rest of the usable information on his page) covered substantially. Deadbeef 05:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Brennan actually had better claims for notability than 8chan for a while there given non-GamerGate coverage of his disability and his mugging, but 8chan also has independent coverage at this point. There is now sufficient basis under WP:GNG for articles on both 8chan and Frederick Brennan.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have both sources and notabilty (creator of 8chan). I don't see any complaints about our page on Christopher Poole. This is just gamergate politics spilling into related articles. Muscat Hoe (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input; I'd like to clarify I am not taking any stance in any Gamergate-related discussion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has shown to be notable outside of 8chan Loganmac (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Al Jazeera America article and the New York Times article are significant coverage, and don't even mention 8chan or GamerGate. They are about him and his life. His life happens to be continuously influenced by his disability - he can't walk, he can barely pick anything up, his tools to do something as simple as turn on faucets break every month, pretty much all he can do is type. But that's not an event, that's a life. Having a disability is not WP:BLP1E. We have plenty of articles about people notable strictly due to their disability, from Terry Wiles to Joseph Merrick to almost all the Category:People with gigantism, to ... no doubt everyone can think of many many others. Yes, those two articles about his life despite his disability by themselves would suffice for WP:GNG. But that's not all he's notable for. He's not WP:AVOIDVICTIM. He's not a victim, solely the face of his disability, he's very much his own man. He's notable for, despite his disability, and holding down two jobs, doing things that had nothing to do with his disability, namely founding 8chan, and being a prominent voice on GamerGate. He is the person that the Huffington Post and The David Pakman Show - major sources - went to for long interviews about it. Ryulong, who no doubt will be here soon to argue for deletion, wrote on the article talk page: "he's certainly no Helen Keller", and that's quite right. Helen Keller got most of her fame from her disabilities; Fredrick Brennan is getting fame for something that has nothing to do with his. --GRuban (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; just a small clarification, I did not mention BLP1E in relation to his disability (which is hardly an "event"), but in relation to the thievery. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell, the proposer's argument applies about as well to certain other figures connected to Gamergate whose pages have already survived AfD. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)— 76.64.35.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep or Merge with 8chan. I think I'll not rehash the fine points made by GRuban and others. I would like to include that if the DailyDot is considered a reliable source then the page more then meets the concerns held about it, as far as I understand policy that is. HessmixD (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a somewhat unusual BLP. I will also say that the substantial focus on disability is extremely professional and it reads like something of a fluff piece. Would also support a merge to 8chan if the weight of sourcing places matters exclusively on it. Taken alone, most of the matters mentioned in the article and the sources related to only human interest and "mentions" other than straight content pieces is a decent case for WP:BLP1E. All these smaller pieces combined and I think overall you end up with suitable notability. There's no specific one thing I can point to as being some kind of turning point nor exact guidelines I can quote, and some of the sourced articles aren't the best quality; I'd probably !vote a delete if it were restricted to 1-2, but this many? Yeah. Marginally notable + WP:BLP1E x even a bit more than 1 = WP:GNG enough for me. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:SNOW yet? It's been more than 48 hours and there are several arguments to keep, none to delete yet besides the original proposal. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs go on for a week minimum. And this is not a snow close yet as there is opposition to keeping as is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 8chan. Subject is not independently notable from the website he owns. Anything regarding his physical disability is not reason enough for separate coverage as it either regards the robbery he suffered or its a human interest story that isn't about him per say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ted_DeVita (aka "Bubble Boy") seems like a relevant comparison; he's notable for his illness and the movie he inspired The_Boy_in_the_Plastic_Bubble, wikipedia has articles on both. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC) — 107.15.41.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Agree with AldNon, minimal support for deletion, request has run it's course. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean anything. There's support for there not being an article. Just because it's minimal does not mean that WP:SNOW is to be applied here. AFDs are open for a week at minimum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"AFDs are open for a week at minimum." reads an awful lot like demanding process for the sake of process 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does one know about {{tq}} so quickly? And all these policies and such. I have a feeling this debate is being brigaded now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because {{tq}} was used in a discussion in which I was involved here under a different IP address. Note the links I've left between the talk pages. See my other comment farther down the page for how I know about policies. I've been reading much longer than it may seem. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! And I am a proud, but lazy, member of the build-a-neutral-encyclopedia brigade. ☺ 70.133.144.10 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bubble Boy" inspired media about his disease. Brennan has a couple of articles about being robbed, a human interest story about his disease, and everything else regards 8chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just close this AfD already.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 03:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be kept?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man do I really need to parroting every word here? Fine! per Muscat Hoe comment.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge with 8chan thriving despite obstacles or being robbed is not encyclopedic level of notability. if he does something other than 8chan that gets noted, then a spinout in the future would be possible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hat comments by confirmed socks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Definately keep. --Torga (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argotton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is that a way to welcome new users?. I am not an expert but is this not a breach on the WP:DNB rules?--Argotton (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're well versed in these rules for someone who claims to be new.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your first and only edit was to this AfD. Either you are in fact not a new editor, or you were WP:CANVASSED, neither or which are particularly good. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's "first and only edit" has to be somewhere. And are we really casting suspicion on new users on the basis that they can cite policy that explicitly requests giving those new users the benefit of the doubt? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When someone's first ever edit is to an AFD on a contentious subject then people are allowed to have their suspicions raised.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A first edit to an AfD and a second edit mentioning WP:DNB are not signs that a user is legitimately a newcomer. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a last note, that is like saying a person is supicious if they know the law to well for not being arrested before. --Argotton (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More like: you get to a foreign country and immediately get involved in political debate and start quoting obscure laws, while claiming you had never set foot in said country beforehand. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to need my vote clearly there is a huge majority here for keepin this article. So i can retract it if thats what people want. --Argotton (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote where a majority count decides things. Nothing on Wikipedia meets that description.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to withdraw your vote; I'm sure everyone would like to hear your reasoning to justify keeping. All you have to do is strike the !vote above, login your actual account, and post your rationale to the AfD in the way you're supposed to. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to be a battleground for something else that i clearly do not get. Good luck with whatever you people are doing. --Argotton (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muscat Hoe is correct--this is gamergate politics spreading disruption elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I see it, Salvidrim! saw Ryulong arguing non-notability on the talk page and being challenged to open an AfD. When Ryulong complained that he "can't nominate it" because some people off-wiki would be mad, Salvidrim! helpfully made the nomination with a summary of Ryulong's argument about 8 minutes later. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing this and assuming that the proposal was originally Ryulong's idea, this AfD reeks of WP:DLS and a sort of petty revenge against the article subject, taking advantage of an uninvolved editor's assumptions of good faith. Aside from the nomination itself, almost every argument has been for keeping the article, except for Ryulong and TheRedPenofDoom, who seem to have come here from Gamergate controversy. I also note that Ryulong has also disputed the notability of 8chan, here proposed as a merge target. Given the recent history with that controversy, I see this as an attempt to censor perceived enemies from Wikipedia. I expect to be attacked for taking this position, but perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I had not initially noticed Deadbeef's signature and had misread his vote as part of the nomination. He seems to be a very active editor, mostly involved in various wikignome activities and has no apparent connection to the Gamergate controversy article. I apologize if I have accidentally cast aspersions on him. This doesn't change that almost every argument has been for keeping the article, but does give the people who seem to have come here from the Gamergate controversy some coincidental company and probably justifies the opposition to a WP:SNOW closure. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I do not believe Salvidrim! has done anything wrong. As an admin, he is expected to help push the community processes along, which he has done here. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can argue that a subject is not notable regardless of what you or others may think of my behavior. You're well learned in this fact and these terms despite your short tenure here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a dynamic IP address. I have had a number of dynamic IP addresses over the years that I have been involved off-and-on with Wikipedia. I have been here longer than it looks. I have remained an IP editor mostly due to laziness and not wanting to deal with yet another account. You can argue whatever you want, and I can cite the appearance of a hidden agenda that looks like a form of on-wiki deletion-as-revenge for something Brennan and his site 8chan have done off-wiki, namely that their commitment to freedom of speech has allowed GamerGate-ists to gather there. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that I mostly sent through this AfD based on Ryulong's arguments about its notability and I wished to "formally" submit them for community review in an AfD discussion, but I did not feel personally particularly strongly about deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could have made the first vote as "comment" or "abstain"? It would have prevented the confusion that led to people expecting a SNOW close earlier after misreading Deadbeef's vote as the nominator's vote. I know I made that mistake at first. 70.133.144.10 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - While this person's notoriety would be near-zero absent his hosting of a hive for both Gamergaters and other sundry networks, the NY Times and al Jazeera sources satisfy the project's general notability guideline. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this person can be said to pass the GNG. That doesn't mean, of course, that an article should be written about them, and as long as the article is nothing but a rehashing of factoids that appear to be mentioned because they come up in a description of the person who founded that board, I would redirect it. But this is computergamergategamesanimemangainternetchanmaterial, so everything must be written up separately, apparently. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right. It passes GNG, and a redirect to the 8chan article is probably the best fit. Sigh......Jimbo and ArbCom have really screwed over this project lately. Not purposely, but still. Dave Dial (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a redirect (added that above just now), but this is unfortunately the reality of our low-bar GNG, the "two sources == article" threshold. We have a hard enough time around here applying actual BLP1E, having to deal with the keep-anything inclusionsists...and woe for us if it a 1Event in a cultural topic area, e.g. the confluence of inclusionists and I-P POV warriors see to it that most every 1Event Jewish article is retained. Ideally, 8chan would have a sub-section for it's el jefe, and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as the person who started the article, I need to repeat what I wrote on the article talk page. I personally have minimal interest in either 8chan or GamerGate, so would prefer you not imply I wrote the article because of those. I wrote the article because I saw a highly interesting personal story. That personal story is not synonymous with GamerGate; it's about a rather young man with a big hurdle to overcome who has despite that made a name for himself on the 'net in a short time. If I can find reliable sources, I'd love to add more about what I've found in less reliable ones - about how he grew up, and his Wizardchan days, and his other sites, for example. He's not just a facet of GamerGate, he's a person. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That personal story is a borderline level of notability when considered separately from his creation of 8chan. He is a reliable figure for his opinion on that but not a notable person just because he created a website and has a degenerative osteopathic disorder.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's a Wikipedia:Notable person because multiple independent major news outlets wrote stories about and interviews with him, several of the stories quite indepth. That's called the Wikipedia:General notability guideline. He was interesting to me to write about because of what I wrote. Clearly he's not interesting to you, and that's all right, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the word notability has a very specific meaning in this discussion, and our personal opinions are not the governing factor here. Wikipedia:Notability is. --GRuban (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's no wonder Gamergaters perceive a bias when of all the individuals involved in this brouhaha with wikipedia articles, you suggest the one who founded/runs a site with 35K visitors/day has done the least to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. --107.15.41.141 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC those figures are fudged and if anything it shows that his website is notable rather than himself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a conspiracy to inflate the numbers. The more notable the website the less notable the founder? --107.15.41.141 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is I've seen conflicting data.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge – Brennan meets generally notability, which may escalate him to more prominence in the future, but because the 8chan article is relatively small, it would not hurt its readability if Brennan's info was merged into a small biographical section a la 4chan#Christopher Poole.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Budget Forklifts[edit]

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

No reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a note on the nominator's talk page about WP:BEFORE for this and all of the other noms by this user below. Most can probably be speedy closed as no argument advanced for deletion. Deadbeef 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louletano-Dunas Douradas[edit]

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

Only one source in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only one ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Fimatic. References adedd. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rádio Popular-Onda[edit]

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

Only one source in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Fimatic. References adedd. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OFM-Quinta da Lixa[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Fimatic. References adedd. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Mobil (cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LA-Antarte[edit]

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

No independent reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No independet refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts stated above, having only one reference doesn't mean that the article lacks notability. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Fimatic. References adedd. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Efapel-Glassdrive[edit]

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

No indepentdent citation in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No independent refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. References adedd. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Joker[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Sparebanken Sør[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Øster Hus-Ridley[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frøy-Bianchi[edit]

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

No independent reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No independent refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roubaix-Lille Métropole[edit]

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

No citation in article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burgos BH[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AC Sparta Praha (cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – invalid deletion rationale. WP:SOFIXIT. C 679 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the above commentators + it looks the team might be notable (meet WP:GNG): [35] (Mladá fronta DNES), [36] (roadcycling.cz). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bauknecht-Author[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euskadi (Continental cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one citation in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Kuota[edit]

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

Only one reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This single reference is a mere self-published contact page and rider listing, without any further detail or evidence for notability. However a quick glance through news reports indicate some, albeit brief coverage in various short sports articles. Maybe a cycling expert can add further comments here. GermanJoe (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NFTO (cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one independent reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Utensilnord Ora24.eu[edit]

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

Only one reference in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclingteam Jo Piels[edit]

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

Only one reference in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As Lugnuts say, one ref does not equate to non-notable. I added some refences. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team Differdange-Losch[edit]

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

Only one reference in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SP Tableware[edit]

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

No reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is not a valid deletion criteria. The nominator should define why the page should be deleted Avono (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page has no reference, Wikipedia has to be sourced; see Wikipedia:Citation needed. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Baltic-Unitymarathons.com[edit]

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

No reference in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cooke (cyclist)[edit]

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

Only one source in the article. Not notable; Cooke did not ride on a World Tour team or compete in a World Championship/Olympics. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is true that Cooke does not satisfy the additional criteria of WP:NCYC, so he has to be judged through WP:GNG. Although he has just retired, I think he has gotten enough coverage, especially in the cycling press, to just pass notability criteria: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], etc. Michitaro (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Groupement Sportif des Pétroliers d´Algérie[edit]

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

No source in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it)Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radenska (cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one source in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighters Upsala CK[edit]

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

Only one source in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I understand the logic of the nomination. Can you show me the policy that states if an article only has one source it should be deleted? This is a speedy keep in my book, as this team forms part of the top level of teams in the UCI Women's Team. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a reference. Highest level UCI women's team. Don't see any reason for deletion. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISD Continental Team[edit]

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

Only one working source in the article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SkyDive Dubai Pro Cycling Team[edit]

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

Only one source in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singha Infinite Cycling Team[edit]

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

No citation in entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Powertag[edit]

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

Only one source in the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is not sufficient reason for deletion. As WP:NRVE states "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Since Matrix Powertag is one of the more successful cycling teams on the Asia Tour, it and its team members regularly appear in the cycling press, especially in Japan: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], etc. Easily passes WP:GNG. This seems like a case of WP:BEFORE. Michitaro (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete it) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis Somos Todos[edit]

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

Only one source for the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing somewhat early as clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. (As a friendly tip - Just because an article has one source doesn't mean we delete (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funvic Brasilinvest-São José dos Campos[edit]

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

Only one source for the entire article. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5-Hour Energy (cycling team)[edit]

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

Only one source. Topic is not notable. Five years from now the article is going to be pointless. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One ref does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Five years from now, 99% of articles will be pointless. So delete them too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team does not confer notability just because 1 or 2 team members possess it. Source and author are not clear about how this cycling team meets WP:NOTABILITY--Mevagiss (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search of the cycling press finds plenty of significant coverage: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], etc. Passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable. --TMD Talk Page. 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bissell Development Team[edit]

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

Not sourced and not notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable due to no significant coverage. A reference search shows many also-ran mentions but no notable achievements so not qualifying--Mevagiss (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but my search found plenty of significant coverage: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], etc. Their victories this year are here. Also note that Bissell is the name this year. Looking under previous names for the same team yields more results; [68], [69], [70], etc. Easily passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Champion System-Stan's NoTubes[edit]

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

Not sourced and not notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No refs does not equate to non-notable. Suggest the nominator withdraws this and reads WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable due to no significant or objective coverage. A reference search no notable achievements so not qualifying--Mevagiss (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a new team, so there is less coverage than some of the other, rather spurious cycling team AfDs put forward today, but there is some: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], etc. And here's even the Wall Street Journal: [76]. I think that is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notabilty. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Lugnuts says, only one ref does not equate to non-notable. (if so, a million articles should be deleted) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sander.v.Ginkel - thanks for the 34 notifications that have just popped up, haha! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, haha, better one more than less :) Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. From what I'm seeing, the keeps seem to be focusing on coverage of the company, while the deletes seem to be focusing on coverage of the person. This is understandable and makes coming to consensus difficult, given the subject's name is in the company's title and therefore part of any source coverage on either. Perhaps one or more seperate discussions should be had over whether the article should be converted to the company and/or whether the individual is notable independent of the company slakr^\ talk / 06:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Lown[edit]

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

No indication of Wikipedia notability of this business person. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is the owner and operator of a dance studio and has received routine local small business news coverage in that role. The only possible claim to notability is in receiving an international business award. However that award is not notable and is mentioned in Wikipedia only in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article came up at WP:ANI as a frequently recreated article that was originally written by Wiki-PR. If it's deleted again, it may be worth considering whether it should be salted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
Delete. Regardless of Wiki-PR, everything seems to be newsy: no secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously meets WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources, and by following the guidelines as they're written this shouldn't be deleted. Additionally, the fact that the article was created by PR people in the past isn't a legitimate deletion rationale. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met because of multiple reliable sources. The sources are spread around the United States and not just routine local coverage. Buffalo and Colorado are far from Wisconsin. One of them describes the studio as having 700 students while shows why it is used as a model studio on the national level. Royal broil 02:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lown is also the owner of More Than Just Great Dancing, an international affiliation program that establishes standards for dance programs and management. Really? Enough of this pioneer puffery. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the subject meets GNG. Issues with content can be addressed by editing, not by wholesale deletion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 00:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically PR. Good quality PR is PR that is picked up by miscellaneous news sources. If "ore Than Just Great Dancing" is notable, how can we tell without an article on it? DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets GNG whether we like it or not. There's significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local paper coverage a fairly small company doesn't make the company's owner of encyclopedic interest. I don't see more than that here. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per above. There is some coverage, but that is from local media and a few press releases that where picked up elsewhere. Moreover, the article suffers from WP:O. She is not even listed in the “notable people”-section in the Onalaska, Wisconsin-article (unlike, for example, Mark Proksch). I do not think this article fits in Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not assert notability of the subject. Possibly a promotional article as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 00:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Foss, Jessie (2011-08-01). "The classroom is her stage: In dance and in life, Misty Lown reaches out to others". CRW Magazine. pp. 13–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
The article notes:
More than just great dancing. The words grace the walls and are synonymous with Misty’s Dance Unlimited, LLC. But for Misty Lown, owner of the dance studio, they're much more than words. It's how she teaches. It's her motto. It's the way she lives her life.
Lown's drive stems in part from a hand up she was given when first starting out. Lown reigned as Miss La Crosse/Oktoberfest when she was 21 years old, the same time Deak Swanson was Festmaster. The two spent time riding a float together, and it was then Lown told Swanson of her dream to open her own dance studio.
Swanson went on to give Lown a job while she was still in college, then bought land for and built Lown's first studio. She began Misty's Dance Unlimited in 1998.
The article provides 27 paragraphs of coverage about Misty Lown.
Livingston, Jennifer (2013-12-24). "In Search Of...the inspiring Misty Lown". WKBT-DT. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
The article notes:
When you watch Misty Lown teach, you can't help but see her passion. But it's what she's most passionate about that might surprise you. "Dance is just the vehicle that I am using to get at the heart of kids."
And as owner of one of the biggest dance studios in the state, Misty has learned, the best way to get at their hearts is to open up hers.
"Misty's Dance Unlimited Owner Brings Experiences with Success to Other Dance Studios". WXOW. 2014-10-08. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
Geyer, Allison (2012-11-04). "Misty's Dance Unlimited: More than just great business". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
Cahalan, Steve (2007-09-23). "Misty's Dance Unlimited Moves to New Building". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
Geyer, Allison (2013-10-11). "Misty's Dance Unlimited earns international recognition". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
Parlin, Geri (2007-12-19). "The Last Word: Misty Lown". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
The article notes:
Misty Lown looked to dance as a cure for a medical ailment and discovered a passion that could last her a lifetime. The owner and director of Misty's Dance Unlimited is a mother of four who finds dealing with 650 dance students a respite after wrangling four kids ages 5 months to 6 years. “I like getting out to the studio for a couple of hours every afternoon,” she said with a laugh. “They don't fling noodles and toys everywhere.”
Simmons, Dan (2006-05-05). "Franklin Elementary celebrates 50 years, as generations of North Siders gather to remember". La Crosse Tribune. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
The article notes:
That sense of tradition mixed with new blood was on display Thursday, as almost 300 Franklin students and staff gathered for school tours, music by the school's string ensemble and a dance performance by Misty's Dance Unlimited, an Onalaska troupe run by Misty Lown.
Lown's grandfather and mother attended Franklin. So did she. So does her daughter, Isabella, a pre-kindergarten student who wore a pink fur shrug and shiny black skirt to the event.
"Come on, Momma. Let's go have cake and party around," she said after the dance performance, hustling to the playground for pizza.
Her mother remembered Franklin as where she discovered dance.
"Elementary school allows you to try everything until you find what fits," she said. "Dancing just stuck for me."
She now teaches dance to students at Franklin and helps support the school's food pantry, a free service to needy students. Franklin has among the highest rates of poverty in the La Crosse school district.
"On the Record / March 11, 2014". The Buffalo News. 2014-03-10. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20. Retrieved 2014-12-20.
The article notes:
Tonawanda Dance Arts was accepted into the More Than Just Great Dancing international affiliation program, aligning the studio with a high standard of dance instruction and management principles. More Than Just Great Dancing was founded in 1997 by Misty Lown, owner of Misty's Dance Unlimited.

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

Cunard (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article had a problematic history before being recreated in November 2014 (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 5 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#A repost by a banned editor?), it should be kept because it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a close call, and I see no clear consensus either way for the John Wallace Diesel article. If desired, this can be renominated after a few months. However, there is a consensus to delete the family member redirects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Wallace Diesel[edit]

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

Not notable; BLP of relatively unknown, non-public figure. Article was created by same user (ParkSehJik) that contributed the bulk of the information in the puff piece on Eric Diesel. Aside from one short obit, no reliable secondary sources used. Bromley86 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're just redirects for his family members:

BTW, if someone could tell me if this particular step was necessary, or whether a bot would have deleted the pages if JWD's page was deleted, I'd appreciate that. Bromley86 (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To answer the nominator's question: yes, there is a bot that finds and deletes orphaned redirects. They can also be speedied per WP:CSD#G8 if the target page is deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but delete family members. I know that patents themselves do not confer notability, but it looks to me that his patents, mostly on GPS use in aerospace and navigation, did have an impact. I found articles by him in IEEE publications. "Diesel, John W., "Integration of GPS/INS for Maximum Velocity Accuracy," Proceedings of the 1987 National Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Anaheim, CA, January 1987, pp. 58-65." "GPS/INS integration for civil aviation. Telesystems Conference, 1991. Proceedings. Vol.1. IEEE. DOI:10.1109/NTC.1991.148022" He is cited in this work: "Understanding the Navstar: GPS, GIS, IVHS By Tom Logsdon". He also published at least three articles in the journal GPS World. His work is cited in: "National Airspace System : persistent problems in FAA's new navigation system highlight need for periodic reevaluation : report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate DIANE Publishing" [77]. And in: "Principles of GNSS, Inertial, and Multisensor Integrated Navigation Systems, Second Edition" by Paul D. Groves, Artech House, Apr 1, 2013, ISBN 9781608070053. That's all I can come up with -- a bunch of small mentions, but which I hope add up to notability. LaMona (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on main subject, delete family members I can't decide about John Wallace Diesel's notability, but his family members are definitely not notable.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. In response to some of the above opinions, WP:PROF explicitly does not allow the mere fact of publication to count for notability — the publications have to make an actual impact. And the citation counts that I can see in Google scholar are too low to pass the threshold of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the publications do not in and of themselves establish notability; but it seems to me that the article establishes their impact, to the point where the scientist himself is notable. By this token, the redirects that are variations of his name should be kept. Notability is not inherited, so the redirects for his families names should be deleted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All not notable due to no significant coverage. Possible attempt to generate notability through self-publicity and family members are definitely not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep on the basis of ref. 1. It's very hard to tell with scientists in industry, but I think the overall career does show importance. The redirects are absurd and should be deleted. FWIW, if the article is deleted, the redirects are removed as a matter of course. If it is not, the usual course is to take them to RfD, but we are not a bureaucracy. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep judging entirely by that obit. I know it's the only obit on the page - but, wow! If accomplishment on this level is not notable, I don't know what would be.ShulMaven (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that obit on a reliable source? When I opened this, I'd assumed that Navworld was part of the Institute of Navigation (because of the badge). Having looked at it, it's a personal website, albeit one maintained by a former president of the IoN. On the plus side, I have found an obit (p. 11) over on the IoN, which is reliable. It's the only hit on their site for "John Diesel" (no hits for "John Wallace Diesel"). Bromley86 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled. Bromley86, your link leads directly to the newsletter and obit that I read (my usual practice with AfDs is to glance at the. page, then google the name - often a couple of iterations of name and keyword - to get a sense of what's out there about a person)After reading you, I followed the link on the page. Not sure what it is about. I had assumed form this AfD that I was reading the same obit everyone else was. It does not change my opinion of notability. But the ION Newsletter obit belongs on the page, with it's list of his awards and, especially, the GPS patent/s. It is hard to determine the impact of engineers/scientists working in private industry. But we should be open to examining with the hope of salvaging even very amateur memorial articles about researchers in industry, because their work is often as notable as that of academics. Just harder to document.ShulMaven (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "plus side", I meant in favour of keeping the article (as a counter to my calling the other obit's reliability into question, although even that one may be suitable because of WP:SPS). Bromley86 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Especially if it's a specialist blog by someone with credentials.ShulMaven (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder what standard user:David Eppstein is holding up when he says the subject's citation count "does not pass the threshold of WP:PROF". WP:PROF does not actually state any objective thresholds. I wish it would, because then these marginal cases would be a lot easier to decide. What is actually in gscholar is dozens of papers and patents by the subject. The highest citation count for a patent is 45 and the highest citation count for a peer reviewed scholarly paper is 30. Altogether, there are hundreds of citations to his body of work. Not a Richard Feynmann or even William Shockley to be sure, but a decent amount of notice has been taken of his work. It has already been pointed out that he was not actually an academic, he worked in industry, so we should not expect the level of publication (and citation) that we would from a pure academic researcher. That, together with the fact that his work has clearly been of some importance in the development of GPS gives this one a pass to my mind. On the question of the reliability of his obit, it is writtten by Joseph Portney, a former president of the Institute of Navigation, so should be accepted as reliable self-published material per WP:UGC. On the redirects delete non-notable family members. SpinningSpark 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for "Diesel JW" on both GS and Web of Science gives me three hits with zero (GS) and 8 (WoS) citations. Fails ACADEMIC by a light-year. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randykitty: There is something very wrong with how you are searching. Using you own search term of "Diesel JW", even ignoring citations to patents, finds for me
  - A new approach to gravitational gradient determination of the vertical (14 cites)
  - GPS/INS integration for civil aviation (13 cites)
  - Integration of GPS/INS for maximum velocity accuracy (13 cites)

just on the first page of results. The rest on that first page are patents, and while we treat the reliability of claims in patents with caution, citations to patents surely add to notability also. Besides which, your search term misses a lot of results because the middle initial is not always used. I searched instead for "John Diesel" which finds in addition

- - GPS/IRS AIME: Calculation of Thresholds and Protection Radius Using Chi-Square Methods (30 cites)
  - GPS/IRS AIME: Certification for Sole Means and Solution to RF Interference (17 cites)

I stress, that is just from the first page of results I am seeing, there are a lot more. SpinningSpark 00:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baisa (Title)[edit]

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

Dictionary definition only thus violating WP:NOT. If it were cited it could be added to the Rajput article, but it's not. SpinningSpark 19:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Still a young article, but even a first version needs more than this. Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:15, 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, Deadbeef 00:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banna (Title), a sister page to this one by the same editor. SpinningSpark 00:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some confusion over encyclopedia and dictionary involved here--Mevagiss (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a very brief definition of a word, which falls into WP:NOTDICT. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 08:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will Thompson (Actor)[edit]

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

Actor does not meet WP:Notable. IMDB is only reference given that loads and mentions him, it is not WP:Reliable. IMDB cited acting roles are all as unnamed extras Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best wp:TOOSOON. My reading of it is that I don't even see a claim to notability meaning that a wp:A7 nomination would be possible. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. A7 would apply if the article just said he likes pine trees and kumquats. Being an "Actor", screenwriter and producer is a claim of importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 00:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet a notable actor. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NAIL Distribution[edit]

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

Completely WP:NN distributor with an article created by their WP:SPA Marketing coordinator[78]. All sources turned up are either self-published or promotional.

As a distributor, I don't believe you inherit notability or importance from your products. As an example, consider Andrews Distributing Company a local beer distributor in Texas. They distribute quite a few notable and important brands like Pabst Blue Ribbon, Miller Lite and so on. Yet, they appear to be a run-of-the-mill company that would easily fail any measure of WP:CORP. It seems to me to be a perfect analog to Nail Distribution.

I think it's that they're in the music industry that may have obfuscated the issue to the admin that declined the CSD nomination for this article.. The Dissident Aggressor 16:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP Vrac (talk) 02:57, 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, Deadbeef 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability--Mevagiss (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Sissel[edit]

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

This article needs evidence that the product is notable. I can't find any such evidence in the article, and also not on the first few pages of search results on Google. As it only seems to collect songs from elsewhere, it is probably not notable. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The information is already included in Sissel Kyrkjebø discography, this article has no additional info.Vrac (talk) 02:05, 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, Deadbeef 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles on compilations need more than one line of prose, a tracklisting and an infobox, and I don't see coverage that could take this beyond that level. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Tejeda[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ATHLETE; all the sources available are routine. Wizardman 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:01, 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, Deadbeef 00:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to meet WP:GNG. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NATHLETE + GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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