Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 December	10 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Representations of Instagram[edit]

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

This topic is not encyclopedic and it's not reasonable to think that we can document every instance of Instagram being mentioned in popular culture (imagine if we did this for every significant company). The article is also based on a lot of primary sources, where the quotes are coming from, in violation of WP:ORIGINAL. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tables of quotes are not at all encyclopaedic, do not provide any benefit to the reader, and are not sourced. It's basically just a collection of every time someone who may be popular has mentioned the service. The rest of the article, looking at the section headings, looks to follow a question-and-answer style, or almost like an essay divided into small questions. I think that the other subjects of the article could be easily explained in Instagram#Controversy or somewhere similar within that article, with no need for this article or a redirect. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a fairly indiscriminate list of media mentions and to be honest, it's essentially the type of situation that XKCD mocked in one of their comics that took years for us to live down. I can't really see where many of these mentions really warrant being listed on Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. If the mention or controversy is so notable that it'd merit being in the article then it should be in the article. However at the same time we need to make sure that we're not being overly redundant in listing every example of how someone has used Instagram or complained about it in one way or another. This is pretty much just someone's student paper about Instagram and I don't see much here that isn't already covered in the main article in some form or fashion. There's really nothing that needs to be merged, so this is just a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as an A10, partially because it's pretty much redundant to Instagram but also because there are snippets of books, song lyrics, and so on that aren't properly cited and could be seen as a copyright violation. I'm not as worried about the copyvio issue, although that is something to be worried about. I've left a message on the editor's page and if it does come out that she's a student then we could probably e-mail her a copy of the page and direct her towards the main Instagram article. If she is a student, then I have to say that this does seem to be happening quite a bit this year (students creating articles that are largely redundant to pre-existing articles and comprising of OR as opposed to routine notability and tone issues)- is there any way that Wikimedia could do a campaign aimed at educational institutions pleading with them to use Wikipedia:Education program? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no situation in which this is needed. Let's mention every time Facebook was mentioned in popular culture. Or Google! If it's really that important of a mention (like an extremely in depth movie on the intricacies of Instagram), then mention it in the main article. We don't need a separate article to categorize every time something was mentioned. Also, I put a big copyvio template on the article as I am concerned about the use of the excerpts complying with NFCC. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the table of excerpts and the copyvio notice. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:44, 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 merge to Nephite#Measuring_system. Sam Walton (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon weights and measures[edit]

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

Not notable. A proposed merge to Book of Mormon has been at Talk:Book of Mormon for over a year with no comments; personally, I don't think it's worth a merge. Boleyn (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Looks like it should be incorporated into the Book of Mormon page. No need for its own separate page.--TMD Talk Page. 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing useful here, and too trivial to include in the Book of Mormon article. ^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nephite#Measuring system.^—^Asterisk*^Splat^→ 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suggested on the talk page of this article, 10 months ago ,that somebody should merge this. Since nobody wants to do so, it ought to be deleted as not notable and orphaned. Bearian (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge I agree with User:TMDrew. It should be incorporated into the Book of Mormon page. The information is unique and notiable, but really shouldn't have it's own page. If it has been under a proposed merge to Book of Mormon for over a year with no comments, then it is an non-contested merge. I think this should just be done now.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge or delete -- We certainly do not need such a page. The very existence of such a set of weights tends to confirm my view that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, but that is merely my POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nephite#Measuring_system, where the system is already described in part. With respect to Bearian's understandable concerns, if this closes to this target I will get my hands dirty and do the merge myself, but please notify me in that case. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Jordan (publicist)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced ~~BLP~~. Google books[1] and Google News archives[2] only reveal brief mentions and others with the same name. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually a Google search of "james jordan" and "advertising" [3] turns up quite a bit, including an unusually detailed New York Times obit and an obit in the LA Times. So I think he does pass the threshold for notability, based on those two obits and other references to him, including a Brittanica entry and a substantial reference to him in a book on advertising.[4] Coretheapple (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, CorporateM, um, this isn't a BLP. He died over ten years ago. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn This source from the New York Times contains a clear claim to notability: "widely considered one of the premier sloganeers of Madison Avenue". Thanks to user:Coretheapple. Looks like I should have also done a regular old Google search first. Since he is deceased, BLP does not call for deletion as unsourced. CorporateM (Talk) 01:13, 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. slakr^\ talk / 09:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Donnelly[edit]

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

I don't see the notability here. She's written a few articles and is on the editorial board of a few journals, but I don't see proof of the impact of her work in the form of citations. There's one here and one here--but the latter isn't worth a lot since that publication also reports that a body frozen in 1936 has been revived. In short, does not pass PROF or GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is a published author, with lengthy interview in the New York Times, and has coverage in multiple news sources. Credible sources imo. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Published author" does not mean "notable". An "published" here doesn't even refer to monographs. For an academic to pass on journal articles alone they will need to be well-cited, and I don't see evidence of that. An interview in the NYT is not in itself enough to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is also popular press coverage such as here. @Drmies: I would be curious to hear why you feel the previous discussion and closure was inadequate, since I do agree that the WP:NACADEMICS aspect is more marginal than usual. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion closed in delete, so I don't understand your point. The NYT appears to be hacked by Al Qaeda or the CIA, so I can't check that link (but I note it's the blog part). I see a few more mentions (two sentences here, one sentence here, a mention in the Chicago Tribune), but it does not add up to significant discussion, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is a WP:NEWSBLOG by a staff author and as such is a usable source. It is an interview, not a sentence-long mention. The previous closure was a delete for the incel fork, but not for the subject of the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Publishing is what academics do, so that in itself does not make them notable. No other indications of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speak for yourself, Randykitty. I can't even seem to finish a revision. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I've been trying all day to get around reading a revision that one of my colleagues prepared... --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been trying all day to get laid. I should get a mention as "Notable sufferer". Drmies (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very superficial survey, too. If the previous result was delete - how come the article is still here, by the way? I don't wan't too be mean but it is such an insignificant research. We have all kind of part time people at the university doing all kinds of research... That is exactly what people at a university do. They are required to do this. And there are loads of people at each and every university doing this, all the time. It is just normal activity for an university... Ugh, terribly thought. Should I write an article on my examinator? Hafspajen (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ms. Donnelly only got her own article in order for some editors to include text from the (currently deleted) involuntary celibacy article. Her only claim to notability is her writings on a phenomenon that is widely considered a fringe theory. I support the deleting this article for the same reasons I supported deleting the one on Brian G. Gilmartin and "Loveshyness" earlier this year. There seem to be a few editors who push rather aggressively for the inclusion of this material but I don't believe the sources are sufficient and the coverage is enough to establish notability beyond a small internet community of "incels". Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be so, but I call 'em as I see 'em and I nominated this only because I believed the subject lacked notability. I have no comment on POV pushing or anything like that (it may or may not be true; I simply have no opinion) and have no reason to doubt VQuakr's good faith. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I just wrote at the DRV for the latest attempt to push incel back into Wikipedia, nothing has really changed since the last time we discussed this. Things that haven't changed include the existence of a small group of pov-pushers who want this article included, and the notability of the subject. The new draft is at least neutral and about the subject rather than acting as a soapbox as the deleted version did, but I'm skeptical that it can be maintained in that state, and anyway writing it in this way doesn't really help make the case for notability any better than the previous version did. And the fact that this was recreated on the same day as the previous AfD closed as a delete is not encouraging. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been successfully "maintained" for the last 7 months without the fringe content. As a reminder to the last few !votes, WP:AGF is policy (and you may note that I was not involved in the "incel" debacle prior to the previous AfD). VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF per these sources which discuss her research and seem to indicate that it has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline": [5] [6] [7] Everymorning talk 03:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the salient points made by David Eppstein, the usual WP:PROF indicators are not quite there. Although the NYT interview helps, the other sources that have been raised are not really that substantive. For example, of the three just named named by Everymorning, two are trivial mentions and the Guardian piece appears to be something like a "dear Abby"-type letter. These are not really the fodder of WP:PROF. Citation situation also seems not to have changed much since prev AfD, e.g. h-index still 11. FYI: She seems to have been a minor contributor to a fairly important book by Murray Straus, although it's not obvious that this is the same person as our subject (I can't seem to find her page at Georgia – it's a dead link and Google does not show any other faculty page for her). Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: No highly prestigious academic award, not an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society, no significant impact in the area of higher education -let's add those last words too as they are stated in requirements, no named chair appointment, no highest-level elected or appointed academic post, no substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity ... not the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area, not in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art....well, nothing that is required for an academic to be notable. Hafspajen (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The three sources cited passed WP:N. It appears a large number of delete votes have ignore this and are also editors from previous AfDs regarding this subject. The NYT article citing her research is more than enough to pass WP:PROF. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong comment Please comment on the issue, not the other participants here, whether they particapated in the previous AfD (OMG they really did? That's an automatic disqualification of all those !votes then) or not. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. Sources provided counter claims of her lack of notability. The rational based on the prior AfD appears to be based on editor history rather than policy. To suggest that we need editors uninvolved in prior AfDs is hardly unacceptable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the 3 sources mentioned above by Everymorning, these do not contribute to notability for the reasons i already gave. The current article has 2 sources, one of which is a dead weblink and the other the NYT piece. The problem I have here is that this one source clearly falls short of the "multiple" standard enshrined in WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

Huffington Post
the nerve
the guardian

These are just three of the multiple sources I've found regarding her research. I can only assume that this AfD was brought to light because of the current DRV in process. David Eppstein's comment at the drv suggested that the article's only support is fringe pov pushers. This could not be further from the truth. Instead to ignore 20 additional sources and two completely different versions is a concern needing attention. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Denise Donnelly's study of 6,029 married people in the Journal Of Sex Research found that couples were less likely to have sex if they were unhappy, had small children and didn't do much together. Well, I don't call that a revolutionary discovery. Hafspajen (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPost link is dead. The Guardian piece is the "dear Abby" type reader correspondence that was already discussed above. "Nerve" is a web-zine whose brief foray into print journalism failed after a few years – not sure that there's much weight here, not to mention that the article only makes a brief mention of her. The Guardian and Nerve pieces are not the type of fodder we usually take as satisfying WP:GNG or WP:PROF. I will gladly change positions if more conventional indicators are forthcoming, e.g. lots of citations or book holdings (commensurate with a high-profile area like sex research) for WP:PROF or substantive articles about her in mainstream sources for WP:GNG. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Agricola44 I linked the Huff Post from a mobile phone, apparently the link glitched, here is the non-mobile link:

Comment I understand your issues with The Guardian piece, however the Nerve article is considered a secondary RS from a mainstream source. Regardless here are some additional sources for you:
- Georgia State Universiy Incel

Book sources

Randykitty I hope my comment above clarified my position. In no way does past participation nullify anyone's comment, however when 4 editors rush from this DRV and each of 4 were heavily involved in past discussion, I can not help but notice inherent bias, which is why a new set of eyes is always beneficial. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still would not consider the combination of these to demonstrate notability. Aside from the pieces written by her (e.g. the Readings in Family Theory), each of these references her work, i.e. each essentially counts as a single citation. The problem is that WP:PROF basically requires that, to demonstrate notability based on "impact" (here, citations), that the numbers be substantively higher than those of the average researcher. The first AfD concluded that this was not the case for Donnelly and it seems these numbers have changed little since then. I would concur with that assessment, especially since sex research is a very high-profile area, especially outside academia, meaning that a mention or two in a HuffPost blog is not at all unusual. Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

These source do however, allow her to pass the WP:PROF guidelines set. There is not a requirement for her to be high-profile. The secondary sources citing her work does in fact show a scope of influence based on her research, not forgeting the NYT article. Despite our disagreement what is your opinion on this article on incel. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, Your language is biased and suggestive. Indeed, you can suggestively describe this as editors "rushing" to this AfD and then you "cannot help but notice" an "inherent bias". However, people follow links all the time. That's normal and absolutely not any indication of any inherent bias (and asserting that actually comes close to a personal attack). --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, I was actually basing my comments on two comments from Drmies and David Eppstein when Drmies stated "I've been trying all day to get laid. I should get a mention as "Notable sufferer", and David Eppstein's comment on the DRV when he stated that I was rehashing old arguments without bring anything new. This could not have been further from the truth, the two versions regarding incel are completely different with the version I am restoring having an additional 20 sources. Comments based not on policy can be disheartening which is why I believed some uninvolved editors can be beneficial to this discussion. I hope this clears somethings up. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not allow her to pass the WP:PROF guidelines set – that is the point. There's a massive corpus of AfD's that have established that conventional thresholds of "impact" of its criterion 1 are enormously higher than these few citations. I have no opinion on that "incel" article, indeed I've not even read it. We are debating this article. To redirect otherwise lends credence to the WP:COATRACK concerns expressed above. Donnelly article lives or dies on its merits alone. Agricola44 (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: It's pretty basic: is Donnelly discussed at "significant length" in reliable sources? NOT blogs, NOT one-sentence casual mentions, NOT "Donnelly's next book discusses X," NOT quotes from her? I'm not seeing it. Done deal, fails the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nha Trang. Notability standards are quite settled by now, debates like this one and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) over notability of a living person usually drag on when commenters fail to understand what GNG means, and none of the keep votes are grounded in policy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:17, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Bacon[edit]

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

Ambassadors don't meet WP:POLITICIAN and I couldn't establish that he meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Stub, fails WP:GNG. This is a better summary of his 3-year diplomatic career, but we don't need it. This was a miserable period in the history of Paraguay, and it would be interesting to know what he did there. Without that, no reason to keep the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternative to deletion could be to redirect to United States Ambassador to Uruguay or United States Ambassador to Paraguay, but I wouldn't know which was more appropriate or if by selecting one other the other, it could cause confusion. ALso 'John E. Bacon' isn't particularly specific, there are others who may have this middle initial. Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, he needs to meet WP:BIO and there us no evidence he does. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:52, 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 03:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sesinyi[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP article, too old to qualify for WP:BLPPROD. An author who is not wiki-notable, whose only book mentioned is also not notable. Ivanvector (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a few sources with a quick google search. One book on Botswana literature mentions Sesinyi 28 separate times and goes in-depth on his writing style, philosophy and stories. I think this is a good example of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-western topics. Keep and expand.--TM 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per TM. Mentioned here are one of the handful of important Batswana writers—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - good finds, TM. These didn't come up for me when I Googled. The rationale for deletion has been resolved; I propose withdrawing the nomination. Ivanvector (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BenLinus1214, do you withdraw your "delete" too? czar ⨹ 20:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Yes, it appears that the new sources have now made this article a viable stub. BenLinus1214 (talk) 03:31, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carter G. Woodson African American History Museum[edit]

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

Three-line stub about a local museum in Florida, written by a disruptive sockpuppet but probably edited enough that it wouldn't qualify for G5. I prodded the article with the rationale Doesn't look notable in the least; most local museums aren't — I don't see any evidence to say that it's notable. Prod removed by Bearian on procedural grounds, "Anything concerning African-American History is likely to be controversial", but he didn't address the notability issue. He suggests redirecting, but I don't see anywhere we could reasonably redirect it; redirecting it to the city where it's located wouldn't be helpful, since city articles normally don't mention museums, except of course when there's a major museum that has its own article. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nyttend. Redirect to the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, or transwiki to Wikivoyage. It's not notable in its own right, but might be a reasonable search term. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on reliable sources available. Search on "Woodson museum petersburg" or other slightly more general search terms. The museum, in 2014, is in difficulty; there was a proposal that St. Petersburg College take over in some fashion. One of a number of articles covering it is: More talks to come over future of woodson african american museum. If redirected, a better target would be List of Florida museums. It would be ironic to redirect the museum to a government article, as there seems to be community and/or museum board conflict vs. government going on. But best simply to keep; there are probably older sources, and current conflict = current coverage = GNG notability met. --do ncr am 18:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:

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

--do ncr am 18:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I could go along with a redirect to List of museums in Florida. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure The source provided by Doncram meets WP:RS but that source alone is not enough to keep this article. If another source or preferably two could be found then I would say keep; otherwise delete. I am not sure why the news reports that the museum is closing when no one otherwise published on what it was doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, in respected Tampa Bay Times, was "More talks to come over future of Woodson African American museum", of 5/22/14 by Katie Mettler, linked above, and also in Tampa Bay Times there are:
  - [Carter Woodson Museum begins to feel its oats from January 10, 2009
  - Woodson museum pays homage to Negro league baseball, by Robert La Rocca, March 24, 2009
  - Carter G. Woodson museum could lose funding under city council proposal, by Katie Mettler, October 1, 2014
  - Some upset by proposed change at St. Pete African-American history museum, by Katie Mettler and John Woodrow Cox, May 20, 2014
  - And it's the starting point, with a historic plaque, of a new African-American history trail, per African-American Heritage Trail to open in St. Petersburg Saturday, by Waveney Ann Moore, August 7, 2014
- and many more about exhibits, etc., in search results on "Woodson museum" in Tampabay.com search pages.
- And there are Form 990 reports for the 501c3 nonprofit at Guidestar (free account required)
- There's mention in Nonprofit Quarterly, in context of article about difficulties for African American history museums as a group, Nonprofit Quareterly article on "The State of Black Museums, part I", June 2014.
- and more. --do ncr am 09:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the sources indicated by doncram demonstrate notability of this museum. --Oakshade (talk) 05:51, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrus Mitt[edit]

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

The last afd failed to reach consensus, but the underlying notability issues remain. Beach soccer and futsal are not covered by WP:NSPORT and he has not received significant coverage for his involvement in these sports meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Beyond that, he has not played regular football in a fully professional league or for the Estonian national team, meaning the article also fails WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International cap as noted in article and previous AFD. Also meets WP:GNG with numerous media articles, many of which refer to him as a "legend". Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't received significant coverage nor has he made a fully-pro league/senior international appearance. Therefore, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. NFOOTY doesn ot cover futsal, so NFITZ's comments are not applicable. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 09:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Bunjaku[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined by a user who appears to have registered an account for that express purpose on the grounds that he has played for the Kosovo national football team. This does not confer notability. WP:NSPORT only to those footballers who have played for their national team in a FIFA sanctioned international match. Since the Kosovo FA is not a member of FIFA, this does not apply here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. FIFA, although it doesn't include Kosovo within its members, does recognize Kosovo matches, starting 2013. Link. The interpretation of the wikipolicy from the above users is arbitrary and illogical. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between allowing a match (as stipulated in the document you reference) and sanctioning or recognizing the match. For example, during the 2014 CONCACAF Women's Championship, FIFA allowed matches against Martinique, but does not recognize those matches as official because Martinique is not a FIFA member. Kosovo is not even a member of UEFA, so all matches against teams affiliated with the Football Federation of Kosovo are considered exhibition matches, not even friendlies. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no evidence the subject meets the GNG, beyond coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Of course the subject doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL; our task here is to set forth whether a subject meets a guideline or not, not to claim that the guideline means what we'd prefer it to mean. NFOOTBALL is plainly and explicitly written, and if you don't like its provisions, this isn't the venue for that discussion.
Beyond that, I just read that link with FIFA. They most certainly don't "recognize" Kosovo matches. They're just allowing teams to play exhibition matches against Kosovo, without sanction ... as long as no flags, national anthems or other national symbols are displayed, and that Serbia gets a veto for any matches played in Kosovo. That's not "recognition" by anyone's criteria. Ravenswing 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that FIFA recognized Kosovo. I said that it allows countries to play against Kosovo, which means that any country (including the world champions of Germany), can play Kosovo when they please, in other words, I said that FIFA recognizes Kosovo matches. FIFA doesn't need to recognize any federations, it may or may not include those federations within its members. That is not the case for Kosovo, however Kosovo's games are recognized by FIFA. So does eloratings.net, a reliable source, which lists all Kosovo matches, since that of 1993 against Albania. This boils down to your interpretation of the policy of WP:NFOOTY, and I happen to disagree. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY is not an affirmative policy. It is instead a guideline by which we judge when players generally achieve notability. Meeting NFOOTY (or NSPORTS) does not automatically mean an athlete is notable, nor does failing to mean it automatically mean the athlete is not notable. The preponderance of sources is what ultimately determines notability, and at this point, this player appears to lack the kind of coverage we tend to look for. Reso lute 23:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, you can fail anybody for GNG, that's based on strength of arguments (and I happen to think he meets GNG, since we are not reading lots of sports magazines that are offline), but I didn't read any logical explanation on why he fails NFOOTY. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think he meets the GNG, provide the cites. If you can't even tell us what offline, mass market sports magazines (and on what pages) discuss the subject in significant detail, then claims that he meets the GNG are wishful thinking. As far as FIFA goes, that letter's text is clear. There is a large difference between recognition and mere permission, and under onerous restrictions as well. Ravenswing 00:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I provided some and I'll look for more. For FIFA what recognition are talking about: matches or Kosovo Association of Football? Bunjaktorollak (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA recognition of matches (which requires FIFA recognition of both national federations) is the key here (as explicitly laid out in WP:NFOOTY). I will even go so far as to say that I would consider recognition of matches by a regional confederation (in this case, UEFA) in the case of nations who are not members of FIFA to help determine notability, but a single instance of meeting NFOOTY is akin to WP:BIO1E unless other notable circumstances exist (e.g. scoring the match-winning goal to secure a spot in the World Cup). — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo plays what FIFA calls "tier 2" internationals. Most other representative teams that play tier 2 internationals are not notable, let alone the players who play for them. The only reason that

Delete per my comment above. Reso lute 23:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo plays what FIFA calls "tier 2" matches (if their opponent is a member of FIFA). Many other representative teams that play in this structure are not notable, to say nothing of the players playing for them. The main reason this is being treated differently is the political status of Kosovo. This is neither a sporting, not a coverage consideration and should therefore have no bearing on notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played in a senior international match for his country. Kosovo may not currently be a member or UEFA or FIFA but WP:FOOTY states "any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable". FIFA sanctioned Kosovo to play friendly international matches. IJA (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of stipulations involved, including no flags or anthems, no matches against nations which were part of Yugoslavia, and that "[c]lubs and representative teams of the FFK may not play official or qualification matches while the FFK is not a member of FIFA." (emphasis mine) Thus, while FIFA is allowing FFK to schedule matches against other nations, those matches are not sanctioned as official matches. The same is true with any nation who is not a member of FIFA - see my example above. Permission to compete on the international stage is a prerequisite to competing in sanctioned matches, but they are not synonymous. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see no difference between "approved" and "sanctioned". The dictionary definition of sanctioned says "give official permission or approval for". Therefore as he has played for Kosovo he has played a senior match for his country.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You include the operative word in the definition: official. FIFA are granting permission for teams from Kosovo to play teams from other nations (except the former Yugoslavia) without penalties to the other teams, but they will not regard the matches as official matches. If FIFA were actually sanctioning the matches, then those matches would have no restrictions as laid out in the memorandum. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research. Nowhere in that letter does it says "because there will be no flags or anthems, this means we don't sanction the games".--Egghead06 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're unclear as to what the WP:OR policy actually stipulates. It does not -- and never has -- said that we're prohibited from drawing conclusions from documentary evidence. It stipulates that articles must not contain original research. This is not an article; it's an AfD discussion, and it's no more out of line for us to draw conclusions here than it is for us to look at a source and make a subjective judgment as to whether it meets SIGCOV. (And that being said, you're not thinking your own argument through. Nowhere in that letter does it contain the words "FIFA sanctions all matches against the Kosovo team." How do you figure that the letter can't be claiming that FIFA doesn't "sanction" matches when it doesn't state that it does?) Ravenswing 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd then that the memo (above) should be linked with the wording "FIFA sanctioned Kosovo to play friendly international matches" if FIFA doesn't sanction matches against Kosovo!!?? So I guess it does.... --Egghead06 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, FIFA has no record of the match against Turkey in which Bunjaku earned his first cap (21 May 2014). Why would FIFA maintain records of some friendlies and not others? The reason is that FIFA does not sanction matches if at least one federation involved is not a member of FIFA; those matches are not a part of any nation's official FIFA record and are not used in calculating the FIFA Ranking. Therefore, this match was not sanctioned by FIFA, and Bunjaku fails WP:NFOOTY. As he also fails WP:GNG due to only receiving routine media coverage, he is not yet notable. Perhaps in the future, but not presently. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with above. Coverage also comes close to if not exceeding ROUTINE which means GNG could be met.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE coverage is not sufficient basis for a stand-alone article, and is certainly insufficient to meet GNG. His entire senior career consists of 10 appearances in a semi-pro league and one cap with the national team in a match not officially recognized by FIFA. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, and absence of significant coverage outside of routine match/transfer coverage also means this fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played for national team of an independent nation in FIFA-approved match. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY, although these matches are sanctioned by FIFA, I do not believe that individuals in the FIFA member team playing receive an official cap, therefore the criteria agreed upon do not seem to be met. I am not convinced there is sufficient, based on one international appearance to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mërgim Vojvoda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL: I researched the Belgium 2nd division regulations, and it's not fully professional. My apologies for contesting the deletion proposal earlier: I thought the Belgium 2nd division was professional. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:18, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Swope (businessman)[edit]

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

Delete: promo-ridden article about a ~~car salesman~~ not particularly notable businessman. Quis separabit? 21:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above and a quick search yields mostly samswope.com websites. Brandmeister^talk 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's no longer a BLP (died 9 Dec 2014), but he's still not notable. Lots of un-sourced info clearly by people who knew him (I mean -- the EXACT time of death: 1:18 PM EST -- you kinda had to be there, eh?). LaMona (talk) 03:27, 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 Speedily deleted as per CSD:G4 and G12 by Sarahj2107. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally just deleted at an AFD, and yet this article has been recreated again (and I don't think this version qualifies for CSD G4). Still fails WP:GNG, still fails WP:NACTOR; sources in the article are largely identical to the ones in the deleted article, and are all either unreliable, primary, local, or simply don't have any in-depth content about Schooley. Not anywhere near enough notable roles for her to pass NACTOR either. And the article reads like a pure promo piece. This needs to be salted this time, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - subject at least meets WP:BASIC, if not WP:GNG which I would argue for as well. Also, I have taken the time to significantly improved sources on the article. Including regional print newspaper sources such as Scarborough Mirror and Kitchener Record, which mention Schooley's contributions as an actor, relevant to the Greater Toronto Area and Golden Triange Areas of Ontario, Canada. Also, if you view the discussion with Winner 42, they mentioned they would NOT have submitted the article for deletion had it not been vandalized. See [here]. Sadfatandalone (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First things first; it doesn't matter one jot what Winner 42 would've done. This is my nomination, not theirs. Secondly, Scarborough Mirror and Kitchener Record are not regional sources; they're local sources. Schooley does not appear ANYWHERE in the Scarborough Mirror source, she is namedropped in the Toronto Star source, and she is literally just mentioned in the other local sources. Schooley isn't even close to meeting BASIC, let alone GNG; just having your name mentioned once in a local paper on multiple occasions isn't a grounds for notability. Sadfatandalone is also a SPA with regards to Schooley, and has made no other edits to any other topic as of this edit. There are also some BLP violations in the article, as it stands, which I will go and redact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see that you seem to have taken up Pastapimp's torch for getting this article deleted, and they were just blocked as a sock. Just saying. Sadfatandalone (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you've made a completely incorrect assumption based on absolute rubbish. Look at my comment in the previous AfD, look at my comments at the SPI, and your innuendo looks rather ludicrous. Especially as a SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why the grudge? You should be pleased that people work to make articles better, instead of wanting to tear down their work. Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's somebody working to make the article better? Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right about the Scarborough Mirror — but The (K-W) Record is the main daily newspaper in one of Canada's 10 largest metropolitan areas, so it absolutely does count as a sufficiently regional source for our purposes. She certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG if The Record is the only reliable source that can be provided, but it does count for a lot more toward GNG than the Scarborough Mirror does. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a further note, this page is a clear copyright violation of Emily Schooley's own biography... so tagged under CSD:G12. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article, as written, makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:NACTOR — and it's relying overwhelmingly on primary and unreliable sources, with only one appropriately reliable source (The Record) which is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC if it's the only legitimate source you can provide. Nobody is entitled to an article on Wikipedia just because they exist — and this article, as written, is not properly demonstrating that she's passed any of our tests for how an article is earned. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the Record source isn't even useful for notability, since all it does is show Schooley in a photograph. It's a clear example of this article's major issue of bombarding a whole bunch of refs that simply include her name, and nothing else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison's sake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlynne_Medrek - this is another actress that has been in Clutch who has a Wiki entry. What makes one notable and one not? Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of actual reliable sources. But also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly the part where it explains that sometimes something or someone that does have an article might not have actually met our notability rules either and may also need to be deleted — even for her, I'm not seeing a strong claim of notability that would actually make her a slamdunk keep at AFD either. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for clarity's sake, how does Wikipedia define "a large fan base"? If you look at Emily's social media followers, they are all in the thousands, which would indicate some level of interest. As well, there has been media coverage of numerous shows she's done, which have been significant and notable to a community (the horror community, the Toronto Fringe community). Am just seeking clarification, as I am one of her fans and would like to make the page good enough to keep. Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having X number of followers on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube counts for nothing toward notability if reliable source coverage isn't there to support an article — our inclusion criteria are defined by coverage in reliable sources, not by how many people have clicked "like" on a social media platform. Examples of how the criterion might be passed would be if an actor or actress is considered by directors to have the ability to "open a film", meaning "a lot of people will come see this film on opening night specifically because this person is in it", or if an annual fan convention develops specifically around the actor and their work, attracting hundreds or thousands of fans from across the country. But it's sourcing the fact to reliable source coverage of them passing the criterion, not just asserting it as "it's true because I say it is", that gets the person over the criterion. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do interviews with the subject count as reliable sources? Or how about Youtube videos, Twitter statuses, general blog posts, or any article that the subject has written themselves (I assume not)? Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All no. Reliable sources, for our purposes, are media outlets independent of the subject and her own self-promotional efforts that choose to devote their editorial resources to giving her substantive coverage. The ideal class of sourcing for a Canadian actress would be things like the television network news divisions, the major market daily newspapers, The Canadian Encyclopedia, extended profiles on CBC Radio (e.g. a feature interview on Q) and nationally distributed magazines like Maclean's. Medium market dailies still count, though. Weekly newspapers are acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough of the higher class of sourcing has been added to cover off the basic notability question, but do not themselves count toward establishing the notability. Blogs don't count unless they're published by an organization recognized as having established editorial standards (e.g. Torontoist or BlogTO or CBC Music or the Huffington Post or a columnist for a major media outlet who uses a blog format to publish his column on that media outlet are okay; a non-notable individual person's WordPress blog is not.) Any page that simply reposts her own self-penned marketing bio from her own website is not an RS. A fan forum is not an RS. Interviews depend on the substance — one on Q would count, because it's an extended and substantive interview that wouldn't have been given to her if the show's producers didn't think she was notable enough to draw an audience, but a magazine or newspaper just giving her a puffy little "Do you prefer cats or dogs?" Proust questionnaire would not. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am still confused. If sources offered to interview her (not just republish bio, but talk to her about her work) would that not be independent of the subject and some sign of public interest, even if they are online? It sounds to me like Wikipedia still looks for mostly newspaper sources? You also mentioned fan conventions - does an invitation to appear at the convention matter? Sadfatandalone (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of how substantive the interview is, and how much it does or doesn't resemble "just a free platform to promote herself" — and it's also a question of whether the interviewing organization would count as a RS in the first place (CBC would; a weekly community newspaper would not.) Most interviews don't really pass that test. Being invited to appear at a fan convention would only count for something if she was the subject of the convention — the staging of a full-fledged "SchooleyFest" would pretty clearly indicate notability, but merely being invited to speak on a panel at a Star Trek convention, where the subject of the panel was the sex appeal of Patrick Stewart rather than anything about Schooley herself, would not. Newspapers, for what it's worth, tend to be the easiest sources for us to look to since they're online and/or archived and databased — but we're in no sense restricted to only newspaper sources, as books and magazines and academic journals and radio/TV news or documentary count too (they're just not always as easy to access quickly or verifiably). Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So purely online interviews are not counted from what you are saying? Aren't interviews designed to promote oneself, regardless of size of outlet? (WG). That aside, it seems she was an invited guest at three (at least) conventions - Ad Astra to perform improv (2011), Polaris as a notable guest (2010), and Notacon as an invited speaker about filmmaking (2010). So, it seems it goes beyond just being on an unrelated panel. Thoughts on that? Sadfatandalone (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and Bearcat. To Sadfatandalone I have been invited to speak at conventions, I have been in my local newspapers, I have been in newscasts. I have performed in multiple live theater events and in the for Olympics for non-sporting events. I am not notable. If I wanted to I could overload an article with references that include my name, picture, or video of me, but that still does not make me notable.VViking_TalkEdits 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the spirit if not the letter of G4 (article recreation after a deletion discussion). @Sadfatandalone: I did not agree with the previous deletion closure, but for the AfD process to be meaningful we need to respect the community's decision. Has something about the subject (not the article) changed in the last month that would invalidate the previous discussion? If you simply disagree with the previous closure, the process for review is WP:DELETION REVIEW. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:NACTOR. This should really be G4'ed (and someone else might very well come along and do it), but I'm leaving it given the nominator's concerns so that a solid result can be flushed out. Seems trying to gain notability by gaining an article (and not the other way around). Creating a bunch of socks (and/or getting friends and colleagues to help in prior AfDs) also isn't helping, nor do interviews/posts on their sites help to establish notability due to failing reliable sourcing. --slakr^\ talk / 05:15, 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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 09:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - A non-notable pornstar who fails WP:PORNBIO. She has no award wins, no mainstream popularity, no Hall of Fame inductions, no unique contributions to porn. Redban (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per nom. While the UKAFTA award may be minimally notable, it nevertheless falls well below the higher "well-known"/"significant" included in PORNBIO. The short-lived award ceremony (a for-profit event, not associated with any notable awarding organization) gained its limited notoriety for various publicity stunts it staged; the awards themselves were insignificant and scantly reported if reported at all. (The reference in this article, for example, is a self-published fansite/database). One award-winner commented "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event".[8] The awards had a reputation among British porn fans for being "fixed" [9]; while such posts aren't conclusive evidence, it is certainly remarkable, even for porn awards, that performers like Jamie Brooks won awards for videos that don't exist. In the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating the significance of the award, it should count for nothing, and there is no other support advanced for this performer's claim to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO because she has won a well-known and significant industry award; UK Adult Film and Television Award's Best Overseas Female Performer. Here's an AfD for a UK Adult Film and Television Award recipient which resulted in a keep consensus. None of the above arguments are good reasons to disregard the award. Redban: She did win an award, it's listed in her article, and not having mainstream popularity or Hall of Fame inductions does not counteract her winning an award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: 1. The ceremony's length of time is irrelevant. 2. I'm sure nearly everyone who has been nominated for that award attended the ceremony and spend money on tickets, a table, food, etc. but only one person per category won, so what makes you think that had anything to do with how they chose the winners? 3. Pretty much every awards ceremony, both porn and mainstream, has been accused of being rigged by either people within the industry who were angry because they didn't win, or fans who were angry that their favorites didn't win, and like you said yourself, those posts are not "conclusive evidence" for those claims. 4. That Jamie Brooks scene probably does exist. Perhaps it's a website scene, which is why it doesn't show up on IAFD, which only keeps track of films distributed on VHS/DVD/Blue-ray etc. and not internet-only adult content. And there shouldn't be any controversy over the existence of an awarded film for Bing since her award was for her entire body of work for that year, not a particular film. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, I'm not convinced that the UK Adult Film and Television Awards is significant enough, for reasons stated by Hullaballo Wolfowitz. I also don't believe that other consensuses should guide our doings because other editors get it wrong (See: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose). Still, even if I accept your argument that the award is "well-known and significant," observe that WP:Pornbio says, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The primary claim to notability is the person's being ""worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and his or her page having "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Look at Carmella Bing's page, particularly the references. All we have is iafd, the UK adult film awards, and information regarding her arrest for drugs (which I feel is an invasion of privacy). Even if you leave the sensitive information about her arrest, she still fails WP:GNG for lacking sources independent of the subject. Redban (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please don't misrepresent my comments, or established facts. When you say that IAFD "only keeps track of films distributed on VHS/DVD/Blue-ray etc. and not internet-only adult content" you're not telling the truth, and you know it. Every IAFD performer page says, plain as day, "Titles that are highlighted are web scenes", even performers like Linda Lovelace, who stopped making porn before the internet was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye. When an award winner admits that his award was bought-and-paid-for, attributing the claim to a "sore loser" is ridiculous. And if you say that the MIA award-winning "Cream Bunz" probably was an internet scene, it's remarkable that not one British fan who participated in the discussions of the awards knew this, or that the award announcement didn't mention the website, an omission I've never seen in any such award announcement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORNBIO. Mhhossein (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The UK Adult Film and Television Awards are certainly "well-known" within the UK and the "Best Overseas Female Performer" award is a "significant industry award" - roughly comparable to the "Female Foreign Performer of the Year" award that's been given out by the AVN Awards. Again, all that's required here is that the sources be independent of the subject of the article in question, which here is Carmella Bing, not independent of the industry that a subject happens to appear in mostly or partially. Sourcing an award to the actual agency that gave out that same award isn't a controversial practice at all. This article needs responsible expansion, not deletion. Guy1890 (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- define well known. I'm British and I never heard of it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well known as, in this case, commented on in at least several well-known, mainstream media sources in the UK...The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, etc.. Guy1890 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Guy, the Guardian article may cover the award ceremony, but it didn't think the actual award winners were worth mentioning, just about how the ceremony fell flat. Coverage treating the awards as unimportant hardly establishes their significance. The BBC article is a brief, snarky piece about a publicity nominating a well-known mainstream actress for a porn award. And the Independent piece is just a passing mention in a piece about that same actress, much shorter than the coverage of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award. Rebecca, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a bard article to use against notability, but it's hardly unreasonable as a response to a clain that something is "well-known". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The real question here is are the UKAFTAs "well-known" (at least in the UK), which they obviously are based on their mention in the mainstream media there. Heck, I'm an American, and I've heard of them for years now, if you want to play that needless game. The fact that some, including you apparently, don't think that they have the greatest repuation out there is really not relevant IMO. There are some here on Wikipedia that think that the entirety of the adult film-related awards ceremonies are a big pile of crap, but that's not a new or relevant issue either. Guy1890 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:06, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 29 D. W. D.[edit]

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

Lack of notability Bromley86 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - wasn't aware of WP:GEOLAND. Bromley86 (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -recognized geographical places are considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:GEOLAND. The village name is however, somewhat inaccurate. It is just "29 DWD" that shows up in census directory and here. Weird name? Yes, never heard of such villages name as they have in Rajasthan. Expanded the article in the meanwhile. Geographical articles should generally not be brought at afd unless they are made up or irreparable. I argue nominator to withdraw. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -I've moved the village to its correct title as per WP:COMMONNAME, to "29 DWD". There are no mention of 'Chak' anywhere. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anupmehra. I think I've withdrawn it correctly. Bromley86 (talk) 15:34, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Townsend[edit]

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

No indication of notability and lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this article just demonstrates his existence, and fails to demonstrate that he actually passes our inclusion rules for either sportspeople or musicians (or to source the article extensively enough to clear WP:GNG in lieu.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and source an article which actually goes into substantive detail about his sports and/or music careers, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and he's not notable as a wrestler or musician. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:04, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Ando[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and WP:GNG since all of his coverage is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet the MMA notability criteria at WP:NMMA and he just has the usual routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both NMMA and GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:59, 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 delete (uncontroversial, with agreement of article creator). Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Victoria Azarenka tennis season[edit]

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

She does not warrant a seasonal article at this time. She is not ranked in the top 5, nor has she won a major title this season or even last season. This should probably be archived in the creators sandbox because there is a chance she could become viable if injury free. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'll move it to my sandbox for now, if her return to form does warrant a page (which I strongly doubt) then I shall recreate this article. MasterMind5991 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best choice. I sure hope she does make it back to form... the ladies game needs it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good for the game, not just the women's but also tennis overall. We've seen del Potro and Serena come back from injuries before. At one stage the former was 485th in the world in early 2011 before finishing that year just outside the top 10 (and for better measure - he reached the quarters of the 2012 Australian Open, losing to Federer). Serena was 175th after Wimbledon in 2011 but also finished just outside the top 10. And the rest is history, as they say. MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The season hasn't even happened yet. There's no way to know if this will be notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this will be deleted. I just want to be sure that MasterMind5991 has moved it... to save wasting time if it Azarenka's performance justifies its recreation in 2015. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been confirmed with me. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:32, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taishan Dong[edit]

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

BLP about a non-notable boxer with the only source being a link to his fight record (2 wins). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX because being a tall boxer is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially an unsourced BLP about a fighter who fails WP:NBOX and has a grand total of 2 professional fights. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet either NBOX or GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:58, 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 redirect to Tom Sims. The nominator hints that there's a chance for notability and I that that as an option for an alternative to deletion. That, coupled with the two redirect opinions, leads me to feel that redirection would be better than altogether deletion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Snowboards[edit]

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

Founder Tom Sims appears to have a chance at notability, but none of the sources provided are actually about this company. CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Sims. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 01:12, 3 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 19:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by DanielPenfield. Pretty much all of the references are about Sims, not about the company. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heart tattoo[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced, likely original research. Any sourced material can be added to one of the many articles we already have on tattoos. ubiquity (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally PRODded by MusikAnimal (talk). The PROD was removed by the page's creator. ubiquity (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is original research. Tried to find some references for a couple of the claims regarding the different types of tattoo hearts but couldn't find anything. - Pmedema (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per OR rationale. Vrac (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tone is WP:NOT encyclopedic and the topic is too large and varied to really confine to a quality stub. I do apologize for the harshness of what I struck through, I didn't intend for it to be that incendiary. Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)~~Wikipedia is not the place to put your terribly-written SEO spam or a fourth grade-quality essay~~. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides being original research, this sort of information would more properly belong in tattoo, where it could be split if it becomes too long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vbuzzer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, lacks sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The one link to a local Toronto newspaper is 404, leaving just a few links to "DSLReports", a BBB listing saying the company is out of business and a token one product review on CNet for its single app, a proprietary messenger client locked to one small VoIP server. Article was created by Special:Contributions/Vtalker, a single-purpose account much like Special:Contributions/Vbuzzer and Special:Contributions/VoIPReview, as advertising and has a long WP:COI history. The one prior WP:AfD ended 'no consensus'. Much of what's here is unsourced, self-sourced, badly-sourced or is advertising. Apparently there's nothing at the last physical address listed for the firm, and its notability for inclusion was questionable when it was still there and open for business. K7L (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about the software and service, so WP:NSOFTWARE applies and the notability of the company is not relevant. Use of any of the "Find Sources" link at the top of this pages shows many possible sources for this article. I've added two to the article. Articles should be judged by their content, not by who created them. The article is certainly not that good, but that's a reason for improving it, not deleting it. Notability is not temporary, so whether it's discontinued or not isn't the point. It still has a functioning website at http://www1.vbuzzer.com/. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Montreal Gazette item is a press release or an advertisement, the "for dummies" item just a passing mention within a long list of other rival products. WP:NSOFTWARE does not trump the requirement for notability; Wikipedia is also not a directory of all software packages that exist or that have ever existed. There is not enough info in reliable sources to write a useful article on this product without citing press releases, user reviews or vendor advertising — a red flag for lack of notability. Furthermore, the notability of the software cannot be divorced from the notability (or lack thereof) of the underlying VoIP provider as this app cannot make voice or fax calls through any provider except vBuzzer. It does not replace general-purpose, standards-compliant, provider-neutral SIP clients like Ekiga, SIPDroid or CSipSimple. Defunct companies may be notable if they're Eaton's or Penn Central sized, but some tiny hole-in-the-wall company whose office is now empty and whose telephones no longer are answered is not noteworthy. K7L (talk) 17:20, 3 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 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Montreal Gazette reads like a press release rehash. The 404'd Globe and Mail link noted above can be viewed via the Wayback Machine. The article is not very substantial. I did not have any luck coming up with any more substantial coverage. On balance, the coverage available puts this below the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability. Per Whpq and K7L, existing sourcing is either incidental or company PR, and does not meet the threshold of significant, independent RS coverage. A search turned up no such coverage.Dialectric (talk) 19:24, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Nechupadam[edit]

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

Seems non-notable. Does not fulfill WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, doesn't appear to be meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO as they lack significant coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources. Only source that discusses the subject in detail. All others are passing mentions. This one may help with writing some uncontroversial contents about subject, but surely not with establishing notability as being interview, is not independent of the subject (see also, 8th question). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:52, 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 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a run-of-the-mill dentist. The sources linked by Anupmehra above contain a degree of puffery that is almost embarrassing - they cannot be taken seriously. And as hinted, the second source does not appear to be independent of him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Miller (outfielder)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer who doesn't pass GNG. Minor league awards are nice, but they don't automatically grant notability. Wizardman 13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BASE/N and GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor leaguer who fails GNG and the baseball notability standards. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:38, 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 delete. This was a close call, especially due to the indie awards mentioned. However, the awards don't count as major awards per Wikipedia's rules, and the consensus seems to be that the coverage necessary to write an article just isn't there. If more sources appear in the future then this can be recreated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Zelko[edit]

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

Non-notable (as yet , anyway) figure. IMDb is a major source; others are pretty darned obscure. At this point, see WP:NOTYET. Orange Mike | Talk 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I put hours into trying to fix the article, and I agree. The director's main movie, "The Algerian", is probably notable. I created an empty stub at The Algerian (movie). John Nagle (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the only thing is that creating a stub in this instance is possibly premature- if there's no coverage or notability for the director then it's possibly likely that the film itself is not notable either. Usually when looking for sources the reviews and whatnot for the director's work will pop up. I'll see what I can find, but you may have just created an article that will have to inevitably be deleted and run through AfD as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. The movie at least has some references. The director/author/producer, not so much. John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the film's article to the director's article. The problem here is that while the film had a few more references, none of them are in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable- which is what we ultimately need here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that in the other direction, redirecting the person to the film. The film has won some awards, and although some of the awards were exaggerated in the article, some of them did check out. John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've cleaned the article some and others can find the original article version here. The problem here is that ultimately there just isn't any true coverage for this guy. The article asserts that he got a review from the Washington Post, but I can't find hide nor hair of the actual review- all we have is a PDF cut/paste of the review. If this had linked to the page or had a picture of the newspaper article then it may have been usable, but offhand I can say that the PDF is not usable because it can't be verified. There are awards, but none of them are really all that particularly noteworthy when it comes down to it. As far as I can see, this is just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. I've redirected the film article for The Algerian to the director's page since there wasn't anything to show that the film was/is particularly noteworthy either. There aren't any reviews out there, at least none that would qualify as a RS, and the awards aren't really notable either per Wikipedia's rules, so there's no reason why the film should have an article either, even if (and especially if) this page is deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep please,I received a message from a user concerning a conflict of interest with my creation of the Wikipedia page for Giovanni Zelko which I would like to clarify. I am not Giovanni Zelko nor am I associated with him professionally or personally. I've been to two screenings of his latest film, The Algerian while I was working for a film festival, DFFLA, where his film was featured during as our opening night piece, and the other occasion, while I was in NY this past summer. Since then I've become a fan of his, and I've been able to access a lot of his work from public content on YouTube and the director's personal website. Zelko has a really large body of work which I thought was worth recognizing, (especially after I read an article about him and his film in the Huff post), and regarding that he's published books, made films, and works with Harry Lennix. There was some buzz around him that I thought would grow, so I thought it would do the filmmaker justice to create a page for him. All of the info I found is available through his personal website and The Algerian movie website, primary, but between those two it was pretty in depth for me to make a good size article, but I see the issue since no one else contributed. But I'm also new to wiki, and zelko's article is my first so I wasn't too clear about the guidelines for single users. I thought if all the info is in the public domain then its usable, granted the sources are legitimate. I did a lot, really so much, research on the director over the course of many days and I'm confident that the page is worth it, and I really would like to have something to show for all the work I did, even though it needed major editing because of wiki's guidelines.Folasade.aremu (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have to show notability in the here and now by providing coverage in reliable sources like newspapers and the like. Most of the sources you have weren't in places that would be considered WP:RS, as they were WP:PRIMARY (meaning that they were created by Zelko himself or someone affiliated with him) or in places that would be seen as self-published sources (WP:SPS) or otherwise unusable as reliable sources. While we do have to worry about verifying information to ensure its accuracy, the biggest issue right here and now is whether or not Zelko is ultimately notable enough for an article. We can't bank on him receiving more coverage in the future, because that's considered to be a WP:CRYSTAL ball/prediction sort of thing. From what I've seen it seems likely that he'll gain more coverage, but it's not a guarantee and I've seen people start off with a fairly strong, promising start only to never gain the amount of coverage necessary to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the sources provided. Satisfies WP:GNG. ---Mr. Guye (talk) 01:58, 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, — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Agree with nom. Looks WP:Too soon. Not clear that it meets WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've found other sources online like a mention by LA Times and this one. His works appear to be mainstream in some fashion, which would qualify him as an artist. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 04:32, 3 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 19:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep First, some of the references being dug up in defense of the article are mere mentions, so I would advise against adding them to pad the references: it's better to stick to the ones that are substantial. The reason for my weak keep is that he has either been nominated for or has won some minor awards at indie festivals. This could be the start of something big, or it could be a flash in the pan. We can revisit this page in the future and make a more informed decision. LaMona (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but 0+0+0 still equals zero. Being nominated for minor awards doesn't cut it: you have to be nominated for really significant ones, like an Academy Award or a BAFTA. It doesn't matter how many casual mentions people find: you need "significant coverage" of the subject, and that just isn't there. WP:CRYSTAL forbids any consideration of what the guy "might" do in the future -- he could get hit by a bus tomorrow, and he wouldn't do those things, which is a reason why WP:CRYSTAL is there to begin with. And no, you don't keep a non-qualifying article to see if he'll be notable in the future. You delete it, and then he qualifies for an article if he becomes notable, in the future. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Lady[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:VICTIM: "the... victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if... the following applies: The victim... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role". This does not apply here; the victim is not notable for anything other than being a victim, and since she was rich and the case was not ordinary, it received some media coverage. Wikipedia is not a database of murder victims; perhaps there's a wikia where this could be moved, but here it fails the notability threshold. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment The case has received nationwide attention and coverage, establishing notability. There is still more work that needs to be done with additional information, as the trial for the person of interest has yet taken place. Also, she wasn't necessarily a murder victim, as she drowned after falling from a height. The subject on trial is only accused to lying to police, not for causing the person's death. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), most of the sources originate from reliable sources, such as ABC,also establishing notability. I wrote the article because the case has remained popular in regards to those familiar with unidentified persons cases and there was a significant amount of information available.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no in-depth or nationwide coverage in reliable sources. Other than a blog, all of the sources are local in or near Cincinatti, Ohio. Agree with nom that the article fails WP:VICTIM. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies as does WP:SINGLEEVENT. The article is about a local investigation and not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 02:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few other sources, some from other spots on the web and including three journals. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I would vote for keep. Just because it happened in "flyover country", does not mean it should be deleted. Cincinatti is a major city. The deletionist comments show the institutional bias of Wikipedians towards New York City and Los Angeles - if it didn't happen in NYC or LA, it must be non-notable. Paul Austin (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear case of not failing WP:GNG. Also the the nominator is incorrect that Wikipedia is not a databse for murders when in fact Wiki has thousands of Crime related articles. Should we cover all crimes, no. Should we cover those who are notable like this one, yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Gourami Watcher and BabbaQ and Paul Austin.ShulMaven (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Swain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability by Truthanado almost seven years ago, notability hasn't been established by anyone else in that time. Last AfD resulted in no consensus, mainly due to poor participation. I'm re-nominating a year later to try to get consensus and resolve this once and for all - it is awful that CAT:NN, articles of questionable notability, has an almost-7 year backlog; if it is established that he is notable, then I'm happy with that. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No awards or anything special to pass WP:GNG. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess he would fall under WP:JOURNALIST, by which criteria he fails. Vrac (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 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. SpinningSpark 16:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Harvey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Note that the original AFD was about a different person of the same name, and is irrelevant to this discussion.) WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor. The municipality in question is not large enough (pop. 40K) to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors, so he has to pass WP:GNG to get an article — but with only two sources being cited (one of them deadlinked, for bonus points), GNG hasn't been fulfilled here. Further, those two sources are supporting a criminal conviction — but given his failure to pass WP:NPOL in the first place, that just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of sustained or enduring encyclopedic interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Notoriety falls under WP:BLP1E. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange IP. It seems to log on just to vote in scores of AFDs. I have no idea what to make of it. 3rd time I've seen it tonight in one of these AFDs about a mayor.ShulMaven (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sean Harvey was an elected mayor of a Canadian municipality for 6 years. He passes WP:POLITICIAN. He committed fraud while in office. I have added more working citations. He is listed in the List of the youngest mayors in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scruples98 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:POLITICIAN just because they exist(ed). With a few isolated and specific exceptions for places which are provincial or territorial capitals, and thus have "regional prominence" that's extremely disproportionate to the place's actual size, a place is not even eligible to claim a presumption of notability for its mayors under NPOL until the population is at least 50,000 — and even then a mayor can still be vulnerable to deletion, if the article isn't sourced to the rafters, until the population exceeds 100,000. Get the number of distinct sources here into the double digits, and then maybe we'll talk — but "was a mayor" is not a notability freebie. If the place he was a mayor of isn't one of Canada's 100 largest cities, then you've got exactly two other options: (a) the place is Charlottetown, Yellowknife, Whitehorse or Iqaluit, or (b) WP:GNG it with enough footnotes to choke a small animal. Bearcat (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, should cease making up his own numerical rules and standards, as discussed here: [10]. and here [11], where he asserts that ">3" or ">5" published articles are some sort of official standard for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia.ShulMaven (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" in question is an established precedent, duly created by a broad consensus of users on a myriad of past AFD discussions on comparable topics. I am making up exactly nothing of my own, and I will not tolerate being accused of anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Mayor of a city of 40,000 is not automatically notable, but it isn't exactly nothing either. More to the point, his administration of the city and his financial crimes were widely covered , google: "Sean harvey" + Vernon. And there was more than one financial fraud, not in our article at present is this [12] article about Harvey's involvement in the illicit land deals that brought down solicitor general John Les.ShulMaven (talk) 02:19, 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 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERP. The argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN goes beyond precedent for how that policy gets applied, and so I reject it. The argument that WP:BLP1E applies would require me to find Harvey to be a low-profile individual, which strikes me as a dubious claim for an elected politician, and I reject that argument as well. BIO1E might apply but wouldn't necessary recommend deletion. Given that he's not notable except for his crime, PERP would be the most specific and best choice of our guidelines, and nothing above makes a claim that Harvey meets either test of that notability guideline. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Joe's spot on: WP:PERP and WP:BIO1E; at best coverage of the person should be on the event/scandal page (if it were notable), but it does not exist. --slakr^\ talk / 09:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Kumar[edit]

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

This was deleted on CSD grounds and restored at an editor's request, however I maintain that there is no asserted notability in the article. Its up to the community now to decide what to do with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article clearly asserts notability under NACTOR, as the subject not only appears in but plays a principal role in two notable films. The article also references a profile of the subject in The Hindu, one of the largest English-language newspapers in India, with a reported circulation in the millions. A prima facie case for notability has been made, and no substantive refutation has been advanced or even attempted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR. One role in Mary Kom (2014), but nothing else. He reportedly had one marginal role in Aśoka (2001 film), according to some unreliable sources, but is not mentioned in corresponding Wikipedia article at all. NH10, "his first film", has not been released yet! IMDB does not know, if his name is spelled Darshan Kumaar or Darshan Kumar. It is irrelevant what The Hindu wrote: newspapers write about non-notable subjects all the time. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC÷)
Delete per Jni Bazj (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject has received "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources" and therefore meet the WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard and merits a Wikipedia article, such as, Indian Express, Indian Express 2, Indian Express 3, Indian Express 4, Indian Express 5, IBN Live, IBN Live 2, Time of India, Times of India 2, The Hindu, The Hindu 2, DNA India, IndiaWest, Free Press Journal, India Times, etc.

There are actually as many as one would like to have to write a start or c class article. Do we need anything else beside the sources found above to keep this article? I request nominator and everyone reading this to check WP:INDAFD before nominating Indian related articles for deletion. I found these sources simply using 'google custom search engine' linked on there ([13]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check INDAFD because I was unaware of it's existence. When I was requested to undelete the article I moved it back and filed this afd almost immediately because so many different variations of notability and significance seem to exist on here these days that its almost impossible to track and analyze each article from all points of its given notability or significance. Its easier then to simply list here so the community can debate its notability and significance merits, which in turn helps sort out where the claimed notability and significance comes from. In fairness, in this particular case, if there are so many sources I would wonder why the article hasn't been expanded more. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and it does take time. The subject simply failed to attract attention of Wikipedia editors interested in Indian film related articles. I find two lines written under "What to do" section of WP:SEP quite interesting in present scenrio. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anupmehra. War wizard90 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria, as he has had significant coverages in multiple RS (please see the above post by Anupmehra for details). --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Upon a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC, albeit in a somewhat weak manner. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as duplicating Anthony Joshua, though Jack Walsh is also a boxer from the UK. Perhaps the author copied the chart as a template but never filled in the correct data for Walsh. Hard to say if it was an intentional hoax, but certainly meets A10 criteria. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Walsh (boxer)[edit]

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

I tagged this for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax but the tag was removed. There may be a fighter named Jack Walsh, but this fight record seems to be made up. There has been no WBC champ by that name. This is a hoax. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:55, 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritualization Of Subordination[edit]

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

Appears to be OR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with all the other pages by the author. They all have the same issues. --Richard Yin (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A10. Cut-and-paste from Gender Advertisements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:49, 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 - Without prejudice to an early renomination in case significant coverage is not provided in due course. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIK Institute Clock Tower[edit]

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

Article does not cite RS. The editor who contested my PROD argues that "real places and landmarks are notable", even though the subject fails GNG and the WP:GEOFEAT criteria. AfD it is then. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article does not fail WP:GEOFEAT. It is notable as per WP:GEOFEAT#3 (which further states notability per GNG). The nominator also seems to lack policy related knowledge to much extent given that in violation of WP:PROD lede, he reverted a prod template back in [14] (telling me to wait till an admin decides to delete it? That's something for CSDs and that too for only the creator of an article). Coming back to the article, the subject is a real world land mark and wikipedia also acts as a guide for real places and keeps all articles related to real places, landmarks, roads, bridges etc as per WP:GEOFEAT#3. All real places are notable anyway. Just to further add in case the nom decides to object the place's existence [15]. Google Books search also seems to have 17 results and 79 results for two different queries. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I hope this thread compensates my lack of knowledge. wikipedia also acts as a guide for real places and keeps all articles related to real places, landmarks, roads, bridges etc → No, we go by RS to confirm notability, and Wikivoyage is more appropriate for such things. Otherwise, we may all create articles about every "landmark" that is located two blocks away from our residence.

Your Google results are also very likely invalid, as apparently you have not checked the books in question. From the 79 results, only four are possibly relevant ([16], [17], [18] and [19]) but they are all inaccessible and three of them are clearly based on Wikipedia. The rest mainly consists of unrelated stuff like this, this, this and this among many others, which don't contain the word "GIK" or even "clock tower". Only two of the results mention a clock tower ([20] and [21]), but these don't seem to be linked to the GIK Institute.

Same thing goes for the 17 results. Stuff like this, this, this, this and this hardly mention this building. Four books ([22], [23], [24] and [25]) are inaccessible, but I find it very very unlikely that they mention the subject at hand, considering the fact that TopGun did not manage to show me one RS (only a primary source and Wikipedia, somehow). So no, NickCT, I don't even see "moderate coverage" in RS. I need someone who has access to these. How do I know they don't refer to Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the 7th president of Pakistan, or to someone named Ghulam? Can someone confirm all of this, please? Regards, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not the same as access, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Secondly, I am not talking about including every insignificant landmark such as a billboard around the corner that wouldn't even make sense; but as WP:GEOFEAT says, if it is an artificial feature that is built upon a notable landmark, it can have its separate article. So no, we can't remove it just because it is a 'landmark'. So we're not talking about being wikivoyage here. Furthermore see WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY... the first link I gave satisfies both on top of core relation to WP:NHS in context of WP:GEOFEAT. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting WP policies. NHS is about the high school itself (not a structure within it), and as it goes, there is obviously a lack of evidence that enough (or any) independent reliable sources exist to justify independent notability (see WP:NHS#Finding_sources). Also, nothing in GEOFEAT says that an artificial structure built upon a notable landmark merits a separate article (don't know where you got that from). The 3rd criteria which you initially referred to talks about infrastructure (...?). Even the opening sentence in GEOFEAT states that: Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Let alone this "clock tower". Your very own arguments prove that it should be deleted, redirected or merged if anything. As for the accessibility part: per WP:SOURCEACCESS I did not reject the sources, and I did ask for help verifying the content, no? Considering that none of the other sources mention this tower, it would be ridiculous to think that these would. It is most likely that the few remaining unchecked books (4 out of 90+) mention the given name "Ghulam", not the building in question. Furthermore, the 5th criteria of self-published sources states that an article should not be based primarily on such sources, which is clearly the case here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see me quoting that this article should be kept per NHS? I said it is strongly relevant to NHS as it is a landmark in relation to a major university. For your the second point, read WP:GEOFEAT#3. Without prejudice, your comment implied disregarding simply because you couldn't access the sources which is why I pointed you to the source access policy as a precaution. I'm not limiting the article to only a primary source either rather implying the two facts that notability of the landmark with the primary source proving its existence as well as giving enough to cover in the article calls for a clean up and probably adding more sources, not an AFD. I would appreciate if my comments are taken as pointers to the my keep comment and not as to dragging you into a two person debate repeating the same claims, as I presume the closer and the commenting editors to be sensible enough to get our abundantly clear positions. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did read GEOFEAT#3, but apparently you didn't read what I said about it being invalid in your argument. I don't think your comments are pointers to your keep !vote. Quite the contrary, they point further to deletion. Unfortunately we are dealing with AfD now. The article has been given enough time to add sources, and through my search I didn't see any RS around the corner or any significant coverage to merit inclusion on the encyclopedia. There is no reason to keep crap on WP while we have it on sight. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing a moderate of coverage in RS. At first glance it seems it would pass WP:GNG. For the record, as User:TopGun mentioned, the nominator's revision of PROD template removal was improper per WP:PROD. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with the university website reference and added another reference which makes reference to the clock tower twice in a university related incident and hence further verifying the name (although the university website is an RS to verify the structure name, this can be taken as a notability pointer to establish it further). Also wanted to demonstrate that sources in WP:PAK topic areaa are usually not found with just simple google searches, at times not found even online while they are by definition notable with much offline RS coverage yet there are significant search results for this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. I will re-quote GEOFEAT: Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Because something is verifiable and exists does not automatically make it suitable for having an article of its own. How does a trivial mention of this building in one source not qualify as a WP:TRIVCOV case? Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are no true scottsman fallacies. First the implication that there's no reference for it, then that it's not enough. And then you specifically said, I did not manage to show you even one independent source, so I went ahead and brought one up with a few minutes effort to disprove what you want to imply with such comments as well as demonstrate the facts mentioned in my comment above with which I rest my case as far as this update goes since I have given rationale for keep on a separate basis and this reference on top of that rather than basing my entire argument on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you did not come up with the relevant sources. One of the rationales of this nom was GEOFEAT, so I am pretty much aware that even if the subject is mentioned by some RS, notability is still required in order to establish a WP article about it (also see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). So no, the fallacy you are referring to does not apply with me. Please address the concerns that I've raised so far and assume good faith in my intentions. It is not required that the source be mainly focused on the subject. It just shouldn't be a trivial mention of it, and should have sufficient content to write an article about it on WP, which is clearly not the case here. There is still some time to find more, so try to benefit from the AfD as much as possible. I am also aware that AfD is not for cleanup, but this simply does not meet GNG to me. Keep in mind that I would never reject a decent counterargument backed by good evidence. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've given multiple rationale for the keep. It is your right to disagree with them all if you wish, but other editors seem to concur and I wonder why such a non controversial topic just became grounds for a heated debate; WP:WIN approach should be avoided here. I do assume good faith which is why I do not call it disruptive, rather just lack of policy related knowledge. Just to point out, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not for landmarks and real places, it makes no mention of such... rather it is for statistics, source codes, software updates. lyrics, fiction etc. Infact, this is not even about 'data' as that section states. It is contextual information and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not even appear to counter any of my arguments though you want to put a local point of reference (as Mar4d describes) through the same scrutiny as if it was my fictional work. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to convince me with your rationale, unfortunately. The campus is notable and this particular building exists, but the latter is only notable as far as your source goes: a mention. It should be merged if anything. But keeping it as a separate article on the basis that the campus is notable is just erroneous and undermines the credibility of this project. When I PRODED the article, I simply forgot that I wasn't dealing with CSD, so take my policy-related knowledge to a relevant noticeboard. I am not trying to make a point here, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE was simply a side note, but one can't deny that it is very relevant in this context as it is based entirely on notability and I've seen before articles on AfD deleted per arguments referring to this policy among others, and they weren't statistics, source codes, lyrics, etc (which appear to be merely examples). As I've said below, you can look for sources in other languages for this article to meet GNG. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even for CSD, I did not create the article and your logic does not apply. I never took it to a noticeboard as a behavioural issue on that threshold and make a drama out of it, mentioning it in my comment again was a reply to your asking of me assuming good faith so don't know why the prod is coming up again. I am only surprised that you are making it this contentious when it is just a university and town clock tower. Anyway, I agree that I can not convince you inspite of my good faith efforts, policy links and justifications - I do not wish to change your !vote, rather do my share in forming consensus regardless as that's the best way in avoiding contention and preventing this discussion from being difficult to navigate for the uninvolved. You did make it clear that you wanted to apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE but is something different and the link makes its own clarifications... it might be a good idea to use discretion in learning from others' comments if you saw some one else incorrectly do it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am only surprised that you are making it this contentious when it is just a university and town clock tower → The university is fine; the clock tower isn't. Simple as that. This is only one crappy article among many others around here, and tolerating more and more of this is quite dangerous to the project, really. AGF was only put as a reminder because of the strange assumptions that you have made (Your arguments are no true scottsman fallacies., you are making it this contentious). I am not trying to make this controversial, but the mere existence of this as a stand-alone article is just baffling and controversial in itself. Once again, I only linked INDISCRIMINATE as a side note (check again), and it is still relevant whether it particularly applies here or not, since it is based on WP:N. Please do not put words in my mouth. And I also don't know why you brought up OTHERSTUFF. This primarily applies to the nature of of the article, not to that of the AfD discussion. In fact, OTHERSTUFF should be used as a reminder to editors who may resort to "countering systemic bias" as a pretext for this to be kept. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a notable university and local landmark, and the fact that it is the tallest structure in the campus and for much of the surrounding regions. Because the campus is based in a rural area, it may be systematic bias to just consider sources in English. Perhaps there would be better coverage found in local Urdu and Pashto sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most popular !vote on AfD indeed. If there are reliable Urdu or Pashto sources, please add them to the article. But saying that this should be kept under the guise of "countering systemic bias" is just ridiculous and ignores the issues that have been brought up. I assure you that I would have done the same thing with a similar tower located in Europe or the US whenever it meets the deletion criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that was the core rationale presented there. Taking taking a further advice and refuting it under the assumption of core argument is another fallacy and acts as moving the goal posts. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a monument and a real place, per WP:GEOFEAT. Fai zan 12:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More and more policy misquotings (kindly see the above arguments). And do remember that !votes are no substitute for discussion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:AGF also includes not blaming every one who disagrees with you of misquoting policies, given the mere number of editors who are reasoning to keep, I guess WP:STICK applies. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The content seems thin but there's an obvious alternative to deletion — merger into the main article about the campus. We prefer to avoid deletion in such cases per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with either a merger or a redirect. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The university article is going to grow and this eventually will be split back per WP:MOS as a child article again. A pointless exercise merging only based on the logic of (current) thin content that is bound to grow and with no disagreement in atleast the university article. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is really pointless is to bring up such unlikely scenario as an excuse to keep a redundant article like that. There are no size-related issues yet, and even if there were, this is not the kind of content that would be split. Better and more legit candidates could be Faculties of the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, List of alumni of the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article "Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology".Saadkhan12345 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability in the region. SAMI ^talk 21:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I am against the merge proposal too. Fai zan 17:04, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Economics[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Their research is sometimes cited in news articles, but that's not enough to meet WP:CORP; there has to be coverage ABOUT the firm. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party references, and I can't find anything other than business-pages-type listings. LaMona (talk) 04:39, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BSL International[edit]

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

Mayn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Has no References included. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even verify this is a real place. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, no sign of existence. LaMona (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Companies under this general name exist (e.g. [26], [27]), but not finding any coverage that appears to be about this particular company. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains at Chennai Central railway station[edit]

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

per WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we aint a timetable hosting service, Anyone wanting this info should obviously visit the train operators website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:OR.Charles (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as the others have noted, this isn't appropriate to our encyclopedia. 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits[edit]

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

This is a case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good list too see where graphic design takes people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.188.180 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom.Vrac (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Great example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. NickCT (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon": http://www.creativebloq.com/graphic-design/celebrities-were-designers-81412563 . Also "notable for other pursuits" isn't a category of its own, so I don't think this is cross-categorization. It's a list relevant to graphic design as a cultural phenomenon and as a career choice. Danmichaelson (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Danmichaelson, your very first Wikipedia edit is this comment above. It's a bit strange. Are you using multiple accounts? Or someone called you to join this discussion? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanjagenije The author of the article shared the article. I visited it and liked it, then saw it has been nominated for deletion (to my knowledge the author isn't aware of this). Since I like the article and feel it's relevant based on my experience in the field as a practicing designer and teacher, I posted as much here. Assume that's legitimate. I do not have multiple accounts. Danmichaelson (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Danmichaelson and Vanjagenije: - Welcome Danmichaelson, and thanks for your comments. While the link you offered goes some way to demonstrate the intersection is significant and notable, unfortunately a single article in a web-based trade news source does not "significance" make. Can you point to other similar articles, perhaps in higher quality sources? NickCT (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NickCT and Vanjagenije: - I agree that article per se is a bit silly. Of the figures listed in it, David Bowie is one who has some potential weight in the graduate design program I teach in, as a figure who crosses artistic boundaries in a fairly deep way, with graphic design as one node in that path. Some others maybe less so, but of course different people and schools will have different values.
    - Here is an article from a respected design writer that speaks generally about graphic design education as an interdisciplinary trajectory. http://blog.linedandunlined.com/post/36674032078/school-days .
    - Article from a respected design journal that discusses the well-known artist Ed Ruscha's crossover between graphic design and art: http://designobserver.com/feature/ed-ruscha-when-art-rises-to-the-level-of-graphic-design/2307/ ; importance of that crossover to understanding his work within critical art perspective; as well as relevance of that crossover to graphic design
    - Ruscha's bio at Walker Art Center discusses same from art perspective
    - That's just using a couple figures as examples but the principle is a potentially important one for many figures and disciplines, and may become more important over time given current trends. Danmichaelson (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Danmichaelson: Blogs are no good. The second one doesn't even seem to discuss "people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits". Neither does the third. Do you have any high quality sources (i.e. published books, mainstream media outlets), which directly and specifically discuss "people who studied graphic design but are notable for other pursuits"? NickCT (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @NickCT: 1. Why are blogs no good to make the argument that the idea of crossover is important to graphic design? This isn't about notability it's about whether the crossover is "culturally significant". 2. Design Observer is about as mainstream as it gets when it comes to a graphic design publication, even though it's an online magazine. 3. The second and third links discuss a particular example of a figure whose crossover from graphic design (used to sometimes be called "commercial art") to painting was important from a critical perspective to both disciplines. And one of them is the artist's official bio from a major museum of art, not a blog. I'm not aware of literally other comprehensive lists published in printed magazines, but surely showing the importance to criticism by example helps make the case that assembling this list can help foster further writing and thought through interconnection, one of Wikipedia' goals.
        @Danmichaelson: - 1. It sorta is about notability. Intersections or cross categorizations like this still have to be notable. 2. Ok. Well Design Observer may be mainstream for graphic designers. Do you have anything which is mainstream for everyone who isn't a graphic designer? 3. Maybe. But taking specific examples from separate sources and tying them together into novel categories is a great example of synthesis. re "can help foster further writing and thought through interconnection, one of Wikipedia' goals" - Citation needed. Fostering further writing and though is all very well and good, but I'm not sure this is what WP or any encyclopedia is there to do. Encyclopedia's present notable facts. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @NickCT: Not giving up. 1. I think the criteria is just whether the list "contributes to the state of human knowledge", i.e. is it overly specific or overly broad as Artw says, or "in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" as the CROSSCAT policy says. The individual members are subject to notability criteria. I've argued why it does contribute, from my perspective in the field, and included the perspective of other critics in the field through links in this discussion. I think the real issue is listcruf not non-encyclopedic cross-categorization or synthesis. Are the figures in this list notable figures? And is it important in many cases that they were graphic designers (important either to the figures' work or in the graphic design field)? Arguably the answer is yes in some cases, no in others; the list could arguably be edited though I'd say having the fullest context is helpful. 2. I've referenced published material from curators of a major art museum as well and doubtless there can be more, especially as the list grows. Besides, if this were an article about science wouldn't science publications be allowable? I've also cited a leading graphic design publication. 3. Synthesis refers to logical inferences in the text of an article, not in the justification for keeping an article. Danmichaelson (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Danmichaelson: - Look. I appreciate your thought process here, and you're making some valid points, but I think you're majorly missing the mark. I'm not arguing that the members of the list are not notable. That's not the point. If lists could exist solely on the notability of the listee's, we could have an infinite number of lists. "curators of a major art museum" are moderately reliable sources, but they're not end-all and be-all. "if this were an article about science" - This wouldn't be a list about science, b/c scientists wouldn't create this kind of list. What you've done is synthesis, b/c you've strung together things which are separate in reliable sources and made a novel and non-notable interpretation about how they are similar by putting them in this list.
Anyways, best of luck with convincing others of the strength of your arguments. I'm afraid I won't be convinced. Also, please don't leave WP. We can use more good folks like yourself. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems really specific yet at the same time overly broad. Artw (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Ljgua124 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of people became notable in careers that weren't what they actually studied in college or university — but that's not an encyclopedically noteworthy thing in its own right, and there's nothing uniquely notable about graphic design in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On its own, it might be a too self-important. Designers, though, can more easily find personal, professional, and historical value in this information than others. So can others interested in topics/subjects related to the article contents. So, perhaps there should be a similar page for several other careers, that would in turn have value for more people. There doesn't need to be a page for graphic design specifically, but it would be good to have "List of people who studied X but are notable for other pursuits" pages, and a master page listing all the different careers that have such a list. Yaco Roca (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second new user whose first edit is to vote "keep" in this discussion. This seams like a case of wp:meatpuppetry to me. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 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 speedy delete housekeeping closure: 17:53, 9 December 2014 Spinningspark deleted page Open source php (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: List of content management systems) czar ⨹ 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open source php[edit]

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

This article is not about the Open source PHP at all. It is a personal essay about different content management systems with some kind of original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTESSAY. Or even the currently nominated A11. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:14, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus[edit]

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

per WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it lists all trains originating at this train station. Having this huge list as a part of the main article (Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus) would make it very long. This list is essential to keep a tab on all articles related to this train station. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we aint a timetable hosting service, Anyone wanting this info should obviously visit the train operators website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this list different than Air India destinations? It also shows which cities and airports Air India flights serve. If you want to have frequency and departure timing columns removed from List of trains at Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, that would be acceptable. But I strongly challenge your deletion notice. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this work is more than replicating information. It has links to all trains departing from this station on which WP articles are already avaialble. I would argue that this list is much better in content than a haphazard list provided on many similar railway station articles. For eg.: New Delhi railway station. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here - Would rather keep the discussion in one area. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:OR.Charles (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as the others have noted, this isn't appropriate to our encyclopedia. 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus[edit]

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

per WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it lists all trains originating at this train station. Having this huge list as a part of the main article (Lokmanya Tilak Terminus) would make it very long. This list is essential to keep a tab on all articles related to this train station. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we aint a timetable hosting service, Anyone wanting this info should obviously visit the train operators website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this list different than Air India destinations? It shows which cities and airports Air India flights serve. If you want to have frequency and departure timing columns removed from List of trains at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, that would be acceptable. But I strongly challenge your deletion notice. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware destinations for airports are deemed notable and plus they're of national interest whereas train destinations aren't so much,

Train carriage no, frequency and departure are generally pointless - Take all that away and you have pretty much nothing other than train companies name and the destination,

If you wanna merge bits in then thats fine(ish!) but as it stands now the article serves no purpose to the peia other than act as a timetable. (BTW I've moved your comment up so if you were pinged by me then that's why) –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one starts creating such lists for all railway stations, then I agree it does not serve purpose. However, the train stations in question are among the busiest in the country. What this list accomplishes at the very minimum is keeping a record of all train-related articles relevant to this station in one place. If you want to merge this list with the station article, that would be okay except that it will make the station article extremely long. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:OR.Charles (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as the others have noted, this isn't appropriate to our encyclopedia. 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have included this list on the station page and removed columns that make it look like a timetable. I have no issues with this article deletion anymore. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 05:38, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Trains at Jolarpet Junction Railway Station[edit]

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

per WP:NOTTIMETABLE βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we aint a timetable hosting service, Anyone wanting this info should obviously visit the train operators website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:OR.Charles (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as the others have noted, this isn't appropriate to our encyclopedia. 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:CSD#G4, notwithstanding the supposed "technicality" mentioned below. The subject and organizing concept is the same and the difference in content is in no way relevant to the original reasons for deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Football on CBS results[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Technically, this is not a recreation of the article deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Football on CBS results, and thus not speedy deletable. However, for all other purposes, it is the same article to which the same deletion arguments apply. Fram (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this escapes being a recreation of the same article only by virtue of the fact that it's a different set of game scores than the last time has got to be one of the most irritating technicalities in Wikipedia history. Regardless: we are not news (that includes sports scores) and we are not a stats book — this is not what we're here for, and under exactly no circumstances should it become what we're here for. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Idea (marketing)[edit]

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

No indication of the significance of this expression as a specific term of art. Prod removed without comment. —Swpb^talk 01:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty hard to argue against a cite from Ogilvy. Artw (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, if stupid, idea. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we dig a little deeper with this one? I can AGF that those sources are valid, at least for now, but they're being used to substantiate a claim that those authors used the phrase "big idea". Maybe that shows that it's in use, but I wouldn't call that sourcing for the GNG, no? @Artw and Bearian. Also, I think List of marketing terms would be a better location for this content if it were more of a glossary. czar ⨹ 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a term of art rather than a random phrase. [28][29][30] - possibly the article should make that clearer? Anyway, that would be content improvement rather than deletion. Artw (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement that it shouldn't be deleted, but I don't see where the sourcing is to write an article about "big idea" as a topic. It makes more sense as a sentence in some glossary or list unless you can find in-depth discussions of the "big idea" idea. The blogs you linked would not be considered reliable sources for this purpose czar ⨹ 02:22, 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, Wifione ^Message 09:13, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Islington[edit]

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

While all the references in this article support that the acts mentioned played there, non go into detail about the bar itself. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned by the nominator and in the article, there is coverage in lots of sources as many notable bands have played there, therefore it can be included here. It can't be redirected or merged to any one band, so the only option left is to keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article only mention the bar in passing and are mostly about the bands themselves. I don't think any of them provide the significant coverage required for GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but lots and lots and lots of them mention it, really far too many just to be written off as a local pub. Indeed, trying to find a source that talks about the venue has been made extremely difficult due to being drowned out by the number of notable bands playing there. (Incidentally, on my search for sources I discovered SOS Sahel in the same building has several book hits). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Finn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. No evidence of any available significant coverage for this individual. Two reasonably major film roles under his belt, with the rest either being minor roles in major productions, or major roles in minor productions, but none enough to garner any independent coverage. WP:TOOSOON perhaps? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) cyberdog958^Talk 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XiVO[edit]

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

Software which does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. The only references are primary sources. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:00, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISPA Belgium[edit]

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

All sources are not independent. Reads like an advert. Fails ~~WP:WEB~~ WP:NORG. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing to with WP:WEB. The ISPA is an organisation, not a website and therefore we'd use WP:ORG. It is the peak Belgian association of internet providers, but indepth references appear a bit hard to find for two reasons 1. Belgium doesn't speek English and I have no clue of this organisations name in Flemish, French or German and 2) The UK's peak ISP organisation has the same acronym in English. Did find this in a book; 1, mentions here [31] and here. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable Organization that meet WP:ORG. There are plenty of reliable sources with a quick google search. In addition to the sources cited by JTdale above, I found this one, [32], [33]. There are more sources but not in English language. Meanwhile, the fact that sources are not in English is not a suggestion that the subject is not notable. Wikicology (talk) 18:25, 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, czar ⨹ 00:14, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 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 delete. Overall consensus is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Imam Taiyyab[edit]

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

Un notable no independent coverage and no reliable sources, does not even describe festival but only people associated with it. Summichum (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ping me if proper reliable references are found and added to the article to demonstrate how it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show notability. I've let WP:ISLAM know about the page and barring them finding sources in another language, this just doesn't seem to be notable. Full disclosure: I declined an A7 speedy on this and recommended that this come to AfD instead. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. please delete it now: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)Summichum (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I think we need a much more extended time to look for references on this topic. I removed yet another speedy, placedo n the basis of implementing the afd, but the afd has not yet concluded. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nom has been placing absurd tags on multiple articles of people and places related to this sect. , eg, "autobiography" and "BLP sources" on articles about places or people who died in the 11th century. In particular, the nom has also been tagging them as "han site", which might indicate the possibility of WP:POINT. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seven days is plenty of time to find sources. If no one's found any, I don't see any reason to keep this around. If DGG wants to fish for sources and recreate the article down the road, no objection. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1996 UCLA at Tennessee football game[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a run-of-the-mill regular season college football game. It does not warrant its own article. The notable details of this game can be sufficiently covered at 1996 UCLA Bruins football team and 1996 Tennessee Volunteers football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, and such individual CFB games must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and consensus, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see 1996 UCLA Bruins football team and 1996 Tennessee Volunteers football team). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This game can be adequately covered at the year/team articles as noted by the nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--TMD Talk Page. 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable game. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NEVENT. ansh666 11:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this could be covered easily and better at a season article. I do ask that if it is deleted that the content actually be moved to those season articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effective microorganisms (EM) for accelerating composting[edit]

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

Spam. The article promotes a product called EM, which apparently should be written EM(TM);[34] it is a line of microorganism-based composters and digesters. The article also promotes a store in Canada that sells EM. The generic information is already found at Effective microorganisms. This was one of a group of articles created last month about exporting agricultural products from Canada to Nepal, possibly as a school assignment. The others have been deleted; the author removed the PROD from this one. MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ARTSPAM, WP:NOTESSAY. A strangely narrowly scoped essay promoting a product and a Canadian company. Kolbasz (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as oddly-targeted essay, per User:Kolbasz. Although there are citations, the effect is basically WP:OR, promoting a particular WP:POV. It doesn't belong here: we have (far better) articles on microbiology and agriculture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, this is one of a cluster of recent essays about the trade in agricultural products between Nepal and Canada. I have started a list of such articles here. Anyone who finds others, please add them to the list. Thank you! --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 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. The general consensus here is keep. In addition, the main concern by the nominator seems to be significant references, of which some were pointed out in addition to being added to the significantly improved article (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wekerle[edit]

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

No significant references. The CBC News story is NOT CBC News, but the local CBC News- Kitchener-Waterloo DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that this needs further content and referencing expansion, but a dragon panelist on an edition of Dragons' Den would qualify for an article just on that basis alone, even if he weren't also a key investor in Research in Motion (now better known as BlackBerry Limited. Yes, that BlackBerry. Really.) And all of the sources — a feature profile in Canadian Business, and articles from both CityNews and the CBC — count as reliable ones. The fact that the CBC source is Kitchener-Waterloo is (a) irrelevant, because it's still the CBC (no division of the CBC ever fails the notability bar under any circumstances, ever), (b) exactly where you'd expect to find a source for the fact it's sourcing, because that's where BlackBerry is based. Expansion needed, yes; basic notability covered perfectly satisfactorily already, also yes. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG. In addition to the references used I've found coverage in Toronto Life, Bloomberg, The Financial Post, Business News Network, Yahoo Finance, Canada.com... shall I go on? Literally, just Google his name. Tchaliburton (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep iff improved with sources or else Redirect, not because WP:INHERITED from Dragons' Den. Widefox; talk 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's claiming that he inherits notability from Dragons' Den — because of the national-media visibility of that role, he gets enough substantive coverage in reliable sources to have attained notability as an independent topic in his own right, which is not the same thing as an "inherited notability" claim. In actual fact, he already had enough substantive coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article before he was named as one of the new Dragons — the guy's been an alpha dog in Canadian business since the 1990s. Even just among the sample sources that Tchaliburton provided above, two of them are dated before he was anointed as a Dragon, and even some of the ones that do postdate his dragonification are still covering him for other things independent of Dragons' Den. And for that matter, I just quintupled the sourcing volume of this article, with citations dating as far back as 1995/1996 — and even then, he was already prominent enough to have been getting coverage of the "named right in the headline" variety. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd hope that all Dragons would meet GNG, else they'd be a poor choice of Dragon. We agree this one does anyhow, and irrespective. I understood (the first sentence of) your comment as inherited, that's all (a minor, nitpicking point). Widefox; talk 00:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragons' Den, little more than that exposure per WP:BLP1E. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:BLP1E apply? What single event is he known for? Look at the coverage in the links above. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think BLP1E applies. Widefox; talk 00:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per Bearcat. AfD is not the venue to force rewriting or expanding the article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

360factors[edit]

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

No particular importance, and a promotional article listing their service. One very minor award , for which their press agency seems to have been successful in getting their story printed. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NCORP and doesn't even make a credible claim to importance. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon going through the references, I discovered that all accessible references in the article, save for Bloomberg Businessweek, are just press releases. The two articles from Yahoo are repackaged press releases, as is the prnewswire. I was unable to access grc2020, as the website is currently undergoing maintenance. Oilpro is what appears to be a social media site for people in the oil industry. In the How Oilpro works section, it states that anyone can edit, so it's no good. Not looking good as far as WP:GNG, as there are a lack of reliable independent sources. However, there are two print sources, one in Arabic, the other in Tagalog, that I am not able to look at. WP:AGF, but if anyone can take a look at them, it would be appreciated. Imitch5 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 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 redirect to Michael Jackson. Both the nominator and the sole delete !vote indicated alternatives to deletion which would include redirection. It's entirely plausible that one day she can stand on her own, but for now redirection is the better avenue than pure deletion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (actress)[edit]

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

This was discussed previously at AfD, where the main concerns were that notability isn't inherited and the she wasn't notable on her own merits quite yet. I have the same doubts - a film is in pre-production (just like 2 years ago) so she might get there after it's released, but until then she just doesn't have the roles or the significant coverage in reliable sources to pass W:ACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not see notability per WP:NACTOR, and I do not see notability per WP:GNG either. Can be either deleted, or merged into the article on her father.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Jackson. She is from a famous family, she may someday warrant a separate article of her own, but right now her claim to fame appears to be signing to star in a movie which, after several years, has still not begun filming. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan - and per the previous AfD. Not individually notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Sullivan[edit]

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

From what I'm observing, this actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The article cites his minor role in the TV series Banshee and two minor roles in other productions. The actor also will perform in a minor role in an upcoming movie with Robert De Niro, Bus 657, an information that cannot be used to support notability. Regardless of what the article shows, I've also searched for hints of notability online, without success. I have not found any reliable independent secondary source talking about this person, except for an interview, which is already cited in the article. To me it seems a simple case of WP:TOOSOON and I'm proposing the article to AfD so that a consensus can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 01:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some things to the bio that show the significance of his character on Banshee, as well as another bio I found on tv.com. ( sorry wasn't logged in when I sent it, and didn't know how to go back and change that sorry guys I'm still a noob haha) The assessment that his role on the tv series Banshee is a minor role I think is inaccurate he was a major villain starting season 2 of the show. I think that the way it was written before may have seemed that way but it's not a minor role in the series. I'm not too sure whether his role in the upcoming Bus 657 is major or minor as well because I can't find much on the project except for a picture of him and Dave Batista from a local Mobile Paper discussing the film.^[1] and didn't know if I should site that on his Tyson Sullivan page? Popcornfury (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/bus_657.html

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and despite claims of a more major role in Banshee, there is no reference to either character or actor on that page. I notice also that Popcornfury added him as as a cast member to the articles on Bus 657 and Demonic - both on the same day that this article was created, so I'm now wondering about WP:NPOV. Mediavalia ^talk 12:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is listed on the banshee wiki if thats what you're referring to ^[1]?? But beyond that, (since I think that's probably not a citable source, I don't know??) someone who actually watched Banshee would very certainly know who he is. Which is pretty obvious through the interview I cited ^[2], since hes a pretty big character, therefore passing WP:NACTOR. Also I just assumed that when adding a character page I should link it to the other projects on WIKI, don't see how that would be WP:NPOV Popcornfury (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making about WP:NPOV was that the two pages you linked to were updated by you on the same day that this article was created, i.e. it appears you were creating links to prove notability which makes me suspicious. Are you this actor, or related in some way to him? WP:NACTOR requires multiple, significant roles or a large fan-base or cult following, neither of which apply here. Mediavalia ^talk 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://banshee.wikia.com/wiki/Hondo
^ http://site.afterbuzztv.com/shows/tyson-sullivan-interview-afterbuzz-tvs-spotlight-on/

Oh I got ya, So in the future should I not link at the same time? Sorry I'm newer on the site, the name was already on the Demonic page but not linked so I linked it, I did add it to the Bus 657 page after I read the article I linked. No I'm not the actor nor do I know him, just a fan. I think as far as WP:NACTOR requiring multiple, significant roles it passes that having the credits that are cited, but could be a matter of opinion. "Or a large fan-base" He's got quite a few twitter followers^[1] but is that citable?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfury (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://twitter.com/TysonSullivan

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Inuit genocide of 1879[edit]

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

Google search does not show that the information in article is factual. No sources for controversial topic DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The search terms that I entered into Google include "Charlemagne N. De Coronado", "Inuit 1879", "Great Slave Lake", "Les Disputes` Orderes #1567", and "Napoleon De Coronado", and in all these search criteria, I could not find any websites that corroborated this Wikipedia article.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3 (hoax). - Location (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meili Cady[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:ACTORBIO, mostly minor and uncredited roles with one low-budget film. Seems more notable for her arrest than anything. Multiple CSDs removed by author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How is Meili Cady not notable? She is all over the news and even gave an interview on abc. StePAhi (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Meili Cady, I am not related to her and I am not promoting her. Check the sources or Google her name. Her case regarding her drug conviction is all over the news. She is definitely notable and deserves a Wikipedia entry. StePAhi (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ACTORBIO and the drug conviction is WP:BLP1E if it is even notable to begin with. EricSerge (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as above. War wizard90 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So she "starred" in a barely notable movie? I've nominated the movie in question under CSD for being advertising, and I fully intend to eventually take the movie to AfD if G11 doesn't work. Delete for being non-notable except for smuggling a large amount of drugs, which doesn't make her notable because it wasn't covered in reliable sources. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Simply does not meet WP:ACTORBIO Diagear (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is ABC News not a reliable source? You seem to be more interested in deleting the article as a bully tactic as opposed to legitimate reasons StePAhi (talk) 13:47, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that could never possibly be complete. Just because someone identifies as Jewish doesn't mean it has to be tracked into one article. Much of it is rather poorly sourced, and a page of this nature is prone to WP:BLP and WP:OR violations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not for cleanup. Remove the non-sourced additions and request page protection if things get out of line. The list has a clearly defined inclusion criteria on a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the Actor and Judaism projects Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the worst AfDs of the year, especially from an editor who is not a newbie. As Lugnuts states, AfD is not for clean-up. In addition, the fact that a list is not complete is never reason to AfD a list. The same is true of a very high percentage of our lists. The fact that "it does not have to be tracked" is inane -- again, the same could be said of all of our lists. Assertion that a page is prone to WP:BLP and WP:OR violations is also odd and an argument to avoid -- by that measure, we would delete our articles on Obama and Hitler and Madonna. Awful nomination -- full of arguments one should not make at AfD. I see that only 3 of nom's 24 AfD nominations to date have resulted in "delete" closes; perhaps he should take his foot off the pedal and watch and participate in and learn from the AfD process before nominating more articles. Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Lugnuts. Fully sourced and clearly defined. Yoninah (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other topics are irrelevant to this one per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Comments towards nominate are also an argument to avoid per WP:ATTP. One sentence at the beginning of an article doesn't really by itself indicate how it meets WP:SAL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Appears to be a suitable encyclopedic topic as the combination of Jewish and Theater has been subject of numerous scholarly articles and books (e.g. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], etc.) Demand for proper references and compliance with BLP and OR for any particular entry is an absolute requirement -- but none of these are valid arguments for deletion of the entire page. I agree that the lead section should be expanded to more clearly define inclusion criteria and the topic (per WP:SAL). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Most if not ALL articles are linked, Most backed by sources, Personally I see no reason to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an encyclopedic topic covered by hundreds of books that cover this intersection of religion / ethnicity and profession, and User:CactusWriter provides just a sampling. The list is well-organized, the articles exist and there are more than 650 references in the article. This should probably never have been nominated, but that's AfD for you. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't a very convincing argument, especially when much of an article's content is poorly sourced. I could imagine having an article with specific criteria, such as "List of richest American Jewish actors" or "List of Canadian Jewish actors", but simply "List of Jewish actors" is too broad to have its own list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS -- please read the (so far unanimous) disagreement with you of the seven editors who have posted so far, and take it to heart. Please also take to heart that you're (continued) argument that what you view as "poor sourcing" (others disagree) is not reason to delete an article on a notable subject -- you still seem not to understand this. And please understand that "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 ... list." That's the essence of GNG -- significant coverage is indeed key. And please understand that there are far longer lists -- your assertion that the size here is an issue is misplaced; if the list were ever to exceed long list size, it could be split into two lists. But in short, please respect consensus when it comes to AfDing articles, and understand from this and your other AfD nominations where your views are non-consensus ones. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of Jewish actors, as a class, is clearly a notable one under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and most entries on this list seems to be properly sourced. There may be better ways of organizing long lists such as this, but that is a discussion for the article talk page not AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cam30[edit]

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

There is not a credible claim of notability. Two website mention this artist. First is a face book page second is the artists own webpage. VViking_TalkEdits 00:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP violation, A7, Bazj (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not under A7, as he is said to be "notable" for being in a film about the NWA. Delete due to a complete lack of reliable sources. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:34, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of Roman Empire[edit]

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

An attempt to turn a couple of conspiracy sites into an encyclopedia article; there's nothing salvageable here. PROD silently removed. —Swpb^talk 00:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - complete nonsense. There are significant schools of philosophical and historical thought with regard to new and post-industrial imperialism as academic concepts. Any genuine attempts and all major attempts to discuss the concept (including books dedicated to the subject) are covered extensively in a range of articles here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some could argue that there are some academic sources that mention the concept of the revival of the Roman Empire, this article is not the way to go about documenting this particular interpretation. I can't really find anything to show that this would really merit anything other than a passing mention in other articles and per Stalwart111 this appears to already be in other articles. In any case, the article's current state really is a case of WP:NOT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hello original research, and goodbye associated Wikipedia article. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidently Original Research. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough information available to warrant a separate article Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:26, 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.

[1] ttp://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2014/10/bus_657.html

[2] ttp://banshee.wikia.com/wiki/Hondo

[3] ttp://site.afterbuzztv.com/shows/tyson-sullivan-interview-afterbuzz-tvs-spotlight-on/

[4] ttps://twitter.com/TysonSullivan

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]