Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 January >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Hetherington[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The main claims of notability, I suppose, are that he has written a book (the article for which I have also nominated for deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned), and that one of his stories was included in an anthology (which itself does not seem to have attracted much attention).

Google search on his name does not bring up any significant discussion in reliable sources, just entries in various social networking sites and book sellers.

In the previous two iterations of this article (since deleted), he was described as an actor and dancer, and now he is an author. ... discospinster _talk 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. May need to be salted this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - nothing notable - and links to Facebook and Twitter statusses. The only thing that looked vaguely notable is, I think, an "Anyone can submit" style nomination - of which Goodreads only shows the top 20. He isn't on the top 20 lists in his own citations. And the Shorty nomination appears to be by one of his friends, with no other votes for him. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOO SOON to know if the novel will succeed. Salt would be too drastic. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Self published on kindle? Amazon rank over #150,000 two months after publication? Too soon is ... debatable. But the salt isn't about that, it's about the first deletion of his page and that there's been an article written about him in a different field. Neonchameleon (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually my fault, about the whole 2nd page thing. When creating this article, I just went over the previous article that was deleted about the actor, so I'm sorry about that, I didn't realise until I was advised a couple of days ago that I should have done "Gavin Hetherington (author)" and not just go over a previously-deleted article. Also, the book has been out three months, not two, and isn't exclusive to the Kindle anymore, which you have to pay for, whereas it's free everywhere else on the net, so obviously ranking on Amazon is going to be affected. But I agree with Deleting the article. The guy isn't notable enough yet and if he does become notable enough, then we'll see. I have no idea what Salt means. Codywarren08 (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salt here on WP means 'protect from creation', which equals blocking the title so only admins can create it. Comes, I think, from what the Romans did to Carthage. Deleted the city, and salted the fields to prevent crops growing for a long time. Salting here is easier to undo. Peridon (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably even speedy delete. This is a pretty big case of spam here, even if it might be unintentional. There is no claim to fame here, as everything is an unreliable source. Even the award nominations are suspect, as every single one of them are the type where you can nominate yourself. You might have to create a different account, but anyone can nominate anyone for these awards. I'm going to see if I can get this speedied as a promotional article. Sorry Cody, but this guy isn't notable and he's unlikely to become so in the near future. Salting the article means that we'd prevent any further recreation of the article unless you can prove with reliable sources that he's notable. I'll leave a note on your talk page about what is a RS and what isn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could possibly be a different Hetherington, although Gateshead and Newcastle are over the river neighbours. Too soon. When he gets a good-selling and widely reviewed book (reliable independent sources WP:RS), that's the time to think of an article. Or if it is the same person, a rather more notable part in something. Peridon (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Deb (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssal Sanctuary: Remnants of the Damned[edit]

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

This article is very thorough and well written but... it doesn't establish notability of the book per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Being nominated for an award is not enough to confer notability.

The references cited are, for the most part, listings of where the book is sold. Otherwise there are self-published sources (author's blog), blog postings by other authors that are merely a description of the book (probably as a form of mutual promotion), tweets by the author, and reviews from web site visitors.

Google search results in much of the same, and a lot of social media postings. ... discospinster _talk 23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon customer reviews do not confer notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's self-published per Amazon (through createspace). No sources of note. Nothing looks even as if it would be vaguely notable even with that list of references that appear to be a misfiring wp:BOMBARD. Delete - and given the Gavin Hetherington page history also up at AfD, Salt Neonchameleon (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This looks like an ADVERT by the author, who is trying to promote his book by putting his working synopsis in WP. If this belongs anywhere, it should be on the author's own website. Possibly redirect to author, if he survives AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to try to wade through the article and do some cleanup, as there's some clear puffery going on here. The first case in point: the Goodread awards are ones where anyone can nominate a book as long as it was first published in 2013. I don't know if the authors can submit their own works to this, but I do know that it's easy to create multiple accounts to vote and nominate things. Not that I'm saying the author did this, just that because this is one of those awards that's so easy to get nominated for and falsify votes, we don't count this towards notability unless you win the final top award of best in your category or best for the year. The Amazon sales also don't count towards notability because sales don't equal to notability. It can make it more easy to get coverage, but it doesn't guarantee it. Plus once you get into specific categories on any sale site, it's easy to say you're the top of something in any one specific category. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: the Bath Novel Awards is an awards contest where anyone can submit and besides that, isn't an award that would give notability even if the book won it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. I've just reverted everything and tagged it as spam. This is pretty much the epitome of someone trying to spam for themselves on Wikipedia using sources that are so unreliable that using them actually made my decision to speedy it as a whole. The award nominations are pretty much a joke, as anyone can nominate anything at Goodreads and the Bath Awards are ones where even the author can nominate themselves. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain that the Goodreads awards are the same thing. You might get notability if you won, but the author didn't win. This is pretty much the epitome of spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you go the self-published route, you have to do all your own advertising (apart from the company's site). I don't blame him for trying here, and wish him luck (very much needed in the self-pub world...), but we're not here for promotion. And this is undoubtedly promo. As to the book, 82,000 words is a reasonable length, but I can't see how he rewrote it in five days. Five agents isn't a great number, either, for rejections. Look how many JKR had before Bloomsbury accepted Harry Potter. 'Sales' figures will undoubtedly be skewed by five days free download. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Deb (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Apple Boutique Hotel[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP. The article has no notability and violates the notability policy corp. It also has no sources besides the companies website. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep as just meeting WP:CORPDEPTH.~~ Source examples include:

Frommers review
Lonely Planet review
The Moscow News (online newspaper)
~~Luxury travel~~ (appears to be a webzine)

There's also some passing mentions in this USA Today article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to see something more than reviews in travel websites (or the moscow news). otherwise almost all hotels would get a WP article. what would get over the line would be more third party coverage on its history or significant events happening at the hotel. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Travel guides just tend to list everything, so the hotel is not really being noted as much as being listed. The Moscow News item is better, and helps towards notability. But the Luxury Travel webzine just seems to have used a standard blurb as the same description is found on hotel booking sites. EG [1] and [2]. -- Whpq (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've struck my keep !vote above and struck one of the sources that was shown to be unreliable. It appears that the topic is not meeting corpdepth at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Machine (Canada)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable clothes shop. Article is entirely unreferenced, which doesn't help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NCORP, I've seen the stores in real life, not notable with no notable coverage on this subject. ///EuroCarGT 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Now is definitely not a good time to make predictions on which cities have good bids for the 2024 Summer Olympics. During 2015-2016 it will be easier to decide. Georgia guy (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too early and too soon. ///EuroCarGT 22:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Crystal/WP:TOOSOON--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bids won't go in until next summer - if they bid (and there's no certainty that they will) that's the time to create an article. Kahastok talk 14:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

I don't think now is a late enough time to make good guesses on which 2024 Summer Olympic bids deserve articles in Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too early and too soon. ///EuroCarGT 22:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Crystal/WP:TOOSOON--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bids won't go in until next summer - if they bid (and there's no certainty that they will) that's the time to create an article. Kahastok talk 14:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Is now a late enough time to make a good prediction on whether Budapest will make a good bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too early and too soon. ///EuroCarGT 22:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Crystal/WP:TOOSOON--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bids won't go in until next summer - if they bid (and there's no certainty that they will) that's the time to create an article. Kahastok talk 14:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged/redirected to Timeline of antisemitism#Twenty-first century. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 06:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wiercinski[edit]

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

Though of course the anti-Semitic harassment of this individual is abhorrent and wrong, I don't see what the point is of creating a Wikipedia article for him. There are unfortunately many many people who are harassed for their ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, skin color, etc., and some of them successfully sue their harassers in court. The phenomena of anti-Semitism, harassment, discrimination, etc., are certainly worth including in WP, and are already covered pretty well (though can always be improved). There may be room for more coverage of the topic of civil litigation in civil rights law in general (something like Civil litigation in civil rights law). Another editor (User:Yambaram) has ~~proposed adding~~ added this as an item in Timeline of antisemitism#Twenty-first century.

This particular case and person do not seem notable by WP standards:

it does not break new legal ground: religion has been a "protected class" since the 1964 enactment of Title VII (employment) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC has sued on the basis of anti-Semitism
it is not an appellate case
the case is just an instance of a widespread (unfortunately) phenomenon, with nothing special about it
the only media coverage has been essentially one article published in the New York Post (the Haaretz and Daily Mail articles are nearly verbatim copies, clearly not relying on original reporting)
the person in question is not notable for anything else (see WP:1E and WP:VICTIM) and indeed the article says nothing else about him Macrakis (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP 1-E Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP1E guidelines do not apply here, as explained below. Tkuvho (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a speedy A7 tag from this, but that does not mean I think it a viable article. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete - Delete as a stand-alone, does not meet significance within WP:VICTIM or MOS:LAW, allow for recreation should it be used as a precedent in other cases--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article meets general notability guidelines. There is "Significant coverage" addressing the topic directly and in detail. Such coverage was found in several leading newspapers. It is claimed by one of the nominators that the articles are not independent, which essentially amounts to a claim of plagiarism against the Haaretz newspaper. I don't think such claims have been established and it seems frivolous to base an AfD on such claims. The case is clearly precedent-setting. I am not familiar with another case where a penalty of close to a million dollars was imposed for verbal abuse. The case is currently under appeal and will likely lead to further media coverage, but in any case the existing coverage is sufficient to meet the GNG guidelines. Tkuvho (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What makes you think this case is "clearly precedent-setting"? Do you have a reliable source for that? What exactly is the precedent it sets in your opinion? You may not be "familiar with" other cases with large damages for workplace harassment based on race or religion, but here are a few examples found in a couple of seconds with a Google search -- I am not an expert in this area, and there may be many more:

$5m punitive damages [3]
$3m punitive damages [4]
$1m punitive damages [5]

I don't know if appeals were exhausted in all of these, and what the final damages were, but then in the Wiercinski case, appeals have just started, so we don't know there, either. --Macrakis (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not accuse Haaretz of plagiarism; I simply said that it is "clearly not relying on original reporting". Did you read the Haaretz article? It explicitly says that it is reporting the New York Post article: "..., The New York Post reported Monday"; "According to the report, ..."; "...Wiercinski told The Post"; "...Blit told The Post"; "Blit told the paper that..." Newspapers often pick up stories written elsewhere, either verbatim (typically through news agency agreements) or by reporting on the report (as in this case). --Macrakis (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the three conditions mentioned at BLP1E are not all met here. The conditions are: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. (3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Clearly, condition (3) is not met here. "The individual's role" was indeed substantial and well documented, and the "event" is significant. This deletion vote is based on an incorrect premise. Tkuvho (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event is not significant. The example is of an assassination of the president of the USA, not a lawsuit for harassment covered by a couple of newspapers. -- 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Yoninah (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see there is not much support for keeping the article. However, there does not seem to be much point in deleting it as opposed to redirecting to the timeline. If it is notable enough to be mentioned at the timeline, why not redirect Adam Wiercinski to it? Tkuvho (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by the nominator, and since WP:BLP1E applies (Tkuvho's attempt to show otherwise was unsuccessful). This doesn't stop it being reduced to a redirect. Zero^talk 15:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then let's call that a unanimous consensus and save any further waste of time on this AfD. Tkuvho (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Worek[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. All references are self-promotional. Page created by apparent WP:SPA. C 679 21:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C 679 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 24-year-old jazz conservatory student. Seems to have played out and participated in competitions a little bit. A tiny bit of blogosphere notice. Might become notable in future, but not close yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Only remotely close assertions are the competitions, which aren't notable. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wade (Survivor contestant)[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E: A memorable Survivor contestant, but not notable for anything outside the show. He's an ordinary person who's done some cool things, which doesn't automatically make him notable. We can't have an article for every game show contestant and every college soccer coach. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this has already been brought to AfD with a result of keep. I cannot find it but recalling seeing somewhere that top-3 finalists of notable competitions were eligible for inclusion--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Loriendrew: If you or anyone is able to find more information on that, I'd be very interested in it. Gloss • talk 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking for it. I am not sure if it came from another AfD (an 8th-ish place finisher on a UK talent show. I was hoping to find it on some form of contestant notability section or something, but cannot find anything of the kind. I see wp:oneevent and this person being on three such events would make him not fall out of notability. I will keep looking/thinking for where I saw it. --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has participated on a game show more than once doesn't necessarily make them notable. So I still think he's notable for just one thing. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] - Gloss • talk 16:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss, what is the point of this comment? This editor is a regular editor, are you saying the keep recommendation is invalid because they used the same reasoning on multiple AFDs? GB fan 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid? No. Should be taken into consideration? Yes. The comments were made on all of the AfDs within a small span of time. Take it however you'd like. Gloss • talk 18:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply: reliable sources cover the person in the context of several events, the subject isn't a low profile individual and their role within three nationally-televised programmes is well-documented. WP:GNG met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak

No, it was three seasons of the same show. That's still one event. Just because somebody competed more than once on a game show, doesn't mean they pass WP:BLP1E. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument depends entirely on your personal, extremely-narrow interpretation of a guideline. Based on my interpretation and previous experience of how the wider community views WP:BLP1E, I believe your argument is wrong. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as everyone voted above for meeting the notability guidelines. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally, we only keep the winners of each season of a major reality show, although exceptions have been made. This person has been on several such "game shows", and has done notable things besides. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: with all due respect, being on multiple seasons of the same game show isn't quite the same as being a contestant on three different shows. And coaching a non-notable soccer team and conducting orchestra music doesn't add much more notability in my opinion, because those things were done at the local level. He's still mostly known only for Survivor. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a fair comment, but because of the sources, I think he passes WP:GNG anyway. This is one of those reasonable persons can disagree situations. The closing admin is going to have a hard time on this one. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Fire Safe Communities[edit]

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

Based on the website not being updated since April 2009, the organization appears to be defunct. No independent, reliable sources cited in the article, and there is no evidence of any activities with lasting encyclopedicity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might wish to (try to) contact the organization by using the information at http://cfsconline.org/contact.shtml.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PayPal link for donations on the site brings up this message: "This recipient is currently unable to receive money." An e-mail I sent bounced. It is an ex-organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of whether or not it is defunct, it has no notability and never did have. I note that the SPA editor who created this article also created an article about Carl Schurtz, the executive director of this organization, and then vanished never to be heard from again. Sounds promotional to me. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Brodbeck[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:PROF.

I see little extensive coverage in independent, reliable sources. The ones I can find include:

DailyDot: No extensive direct coverage
The Western Star: No extensive direct coverage
Google scholar and Google results were proposed a year ago for sourcing, but skimming through them I see a lot of primary sources by the subject. There may be something in there I missed, but the article subject doesn't seem to think so.

User:Dbrodbeck can probably answer any questions. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is about me, I think it was created by an ex student of mine, back a few years ago, 08 I think. Anyway, if any questions arise I am happy to assist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of only 7 in a highly cited field does not pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Only coverage in local press. No indication that he's more notable than your average academic (which is the basic principle behind WP:PROF). Note that there's another academic with the same name, a musicologist at UC Irvine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He probably deserves an article actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us why? --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't; it's irrelevant to this discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I interpret the above as a "keep" argument and would like to know the reasoning behind it. That this is the subject himself is irrelevant. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There's another academic with the same name" is an observation of no possible pertinence to whether this article should be deleted or not. Dbrodbeck seems to have mentioned it as an irrelevant aside. I am simply trying to keep discussion on topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread, you're right. Sorry about that, ran out of coffee yesterday... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The UCI one has a named chair (WP:PROF#C5). Not that it has any bearing on the present discussion... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WoS also shows h-index 7, but the citation list is: 194, 136, 66, 37, 28, 18, ... mostly on single-author or small author list papers. Agricola44 (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devcoin[edit]

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

Non-notable coin, reads like any spam or advertisement. Citation Needed | Talk 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability. Refs provided are a forum and a developer's site and not RS coverage. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No warrant for notability, no sources outside of the Devcoin site, no significant news coverage, and the article reads like an advertisement. --DrCruse (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --David G (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article reads like an advertisement. SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure WP:PROMOTION, SPA creator, no reliable sources provided. Google didn't yield any either. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have resubmitted the entry in better accordance with wikipedia guidelines. This includes sources, internal and external references, and categorisation. Please let me know if there's anything I could do further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisoq (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP.Flat Out let's discuss it 23:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'linuxtoday' ref to highlight independence of origin beginlinux blog ref. Added 'Guardian' source to support 'Alt' ref, and highlight the independence and notability of 'coindesk.com' - the journalists and the portal - as a resource of digital currency technology newsAndersonf87 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'Bootstrapping a Decentralized Autonomous Corporation' ref to help support the funding/distribution claim from a non-devcoin source, one well-regarded for cryptocurrency news and information.Andersonf87 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review, article has been improved by many users, so many of above comments are not actual. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the sources still seem to lack reliability. It looks like the only WP:RELIABLE source is the on from the guardian, and that says the word devcoin exactly once, as part of the sentence: "But there are many others: PPCoin, Freicoin, Namecoin, Terracoin, Devcoin, IxCoin and Novacoin, to name a few." Hardly suitable for establishing notability. All, as in, every single one (except linuxtoday) of the other sources is a niche, cryptocurrency specific website. Maybe this coin could be added to something like "List of cryptocurrencies", but it is not suitable for its own article. Benboy00 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per what I said above Benboy00 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I consider the currently cited sources in the article except The Guardian, Coindesk, and Bitcoin Magazine not to be reliable sources, and the coverage afforded in those three sources does not establish notability. I also did a search of books, news articles, and academic journals and sources; it is mentioned in two books, but neither afforded a preview concerning what was said, and it wasn't clear whether they were "legitimate" books or just cobbled-together collections of Wikipedia articles. Devcoin was also mentioned in a paragraph in a research paper from Instituto Universitario de Investigación sobre Seguridad Interior, but along the same level of "this exists" coverage as Coindesk's. --Agyle (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add, concerning why I don't consider the Linux Today citation a reliable source: LT seems to rely on user-submitted articles. The LT "article" cited here is a single short paragraph pointing to an off-site "complete story" that's simply a blog post on a different website. It fails WP:RS hard. --Agyle (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term Delete - Not notable right now but may eventually become noteworthy as it is actually quite interesting.VinceSamios (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linuxtoday is aggregated and user-submitted, but as far as I'm aware it's edited prior to posting and a major open-source news source. All of their articles are in the format you outline. Devcoin is about open-source and crytpocurrencies; the sources referenced are among the most reliable and 'notable' in those fields (and are not devcoin-only sites). The specific devcoin sources are only to explain the technicalities and specifics which wouldn't be hosted as information on another site (per every other cryptocurrency wikipedia submission).Andersonf87 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add, if some now consider reliability is determined via "The Guardian, Coindesk, and Bitcoin Magazine" and the later two of those three (and perhaps linuxtoday) substantiate the core of the devcoin article and are very notable in their fields, by what objective measure does wikipedia then assess notability and find it lacking?Andersonf87 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point: Coindesk, if considered a reliable source (which I'm not 100% sure it is) does not mention devcoin in significant way. Of the two articles linked, one mentions devcoin once, in the sentence "Should you mine Luckycoin, Devcoin, Nibble or PPCoin?" The other is a list of (mostly non-notable) alternative virtual currencies, and talks for one paragraph (out of 16) about devcoin. The BTC magazine article mention is most certainly in passing, and therefore not suitable for establishing notability. You seem to be confusing words like reliability and notable. The source needs to be reliable, to show that the article is notable. Notability is determined via reliable sources. Wikipedia assesses notability as laid out WP:GNG here, i.e. Must have multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. Of course, this is not an absolute thing, but for our purposes it can be treated as one, unless there is an obvious problem with that. Benboy00 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to make clear, that paper is a good source of information, but is obviously not suitable for demonstrating notability in this case (not that anyone said it was). Benboy00 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andersonf87, I gather from your contributions that you're new to Wikipedia editing as of two days ago. I'm not sure I'd call it an “objective” measure, but in answer to your question, the guideline for notability on Wikipedia is at WP:N. Other people above have linked to other guidelines or sections of guidelines on Wikipedia policies: WP:RS, WP:ADVERTISE, WP:CORP, WP:Single-purpose account, and WP:PROMOTION. I didn't mean to say the three sources I listed are necessarily reliable sources, and I am not an employee of Wikipedia nor do I have any special authority to officially decree publications as reliable or not reliable. My point was that in my opinion, the other sources are clearly not reliable sources (per WP:RS), and that the remaining sources (whether reliable or not) still do not fulfill WP:N's notability requirement. There are subjective calls on questions of reliability or notability, and that's why decisions are opened to group discussion. ––Agyle (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle, yes I'm new. Many of the earlier links you note relate to a submission prior to my edit. I agreed with those earlier opinions and is what prompted my article overhaul. I've now spent a lot of time reading through wiki policy links (beginning with those suggested by Flat Out and Vanjagenije and their suggestions/edits) so I hope my points are becoming more on point. The subjectivity I referred to was really only with regards to notability and linuxtoday (and others and reliability) and that opinions such as yours, mine and wiki employees may differ when on a subject where familiarity with certain sources and how they work may differs. However, I also welcome the group discussion and appraisal.Andersonf87 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added ref to 2012 SOTICS paper (p.25 summary of devcoin - alt currency, open source, distribution)Andersonf87 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. It seems quite subjective then, in that I assumed notability was contextual to the article. The sources might not be joe-bloggs mainstream but pretty mainstream for the subject matter (reliable). I understood that linuxtoday submissions are checked before posting by an editor so that article would amount to reliable and notable. The brief coindesk article mention was to highlight that this is the same journalist as TheGuardian article - to make the point about the tenured journalists and source in general (reliability). Formalising the article as 'needing improvement' would be fair (like the Ripple (payment protocol) article), but I don't think deletion is warranted.Andersonf87 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Keane[edit]

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

Contested PROD, concern still valid. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY JMHamo (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:32, 4 January 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 January 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSPORT as other stated. ///EuroCarGT 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Six appearance while on loan to (I think) an amateur club suggests NN, as yet, Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Conference is not fully pro. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2011 in literature (editorial decision to change merge target if there is a better one). Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Australian literature[edit]

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

Only 1 single entry throughout the year; better to get the entry merge in 2011 in literature Awards section. Ninney (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about merge into (or create) 2010s in Australian literature instead? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me Refer List of years in Australian literature Which lists a link from 2003 to 2009 as good listing pages. Your suggestion of merging enteries from 2010 to 2019 as 2010s in Australian literature sounds feasible. I am OK with whatever is appropriate, Hoping for more opinions on the subject matter. Thanks User:Lugnuts - Ninney (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine housekeeping without prejudice against recreation. Abandoned start from June 2013. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above . You can't create one entry articles and walk away expecting others to develop the article. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that could be said about every single stub article created since WP began. Is that really a valid reason for deletion? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes because as it stands notability isn't established. Most old stubs on WP are inherently notable topics such as geographic places. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I would rather put it this way -
  A stub article with 1 Single statement, but if notable enough, may be worth Keeping
  A Listing page with less than 5-7 entries, though notable enough, not worth Keeping ... Try Merging it in some article. For, If its a List page, there is sure to be an article/topic about it or some section with similiar interest. - Ninney (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: comments on the suggestion to broaden the scope to 2010s in Australian literature would be welcome as well as more general keep/delete etc recommendations

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Valiant (film). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Chapman (director)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Sourced only to a (no longer working) personal homepage and IMDb since 2009, it appears Chapman's notable career began and ended in 2005 with his direction of the animation, Valiant. Though there is a claim of a Golden Globe Award 20 years beforehand, I can't find any evidence of this and there's no claim of notable activity in the 1980's on IMDb or on his Wiki article! In my view fails WP:GNG and insufficient notable creative output (yet) to meet WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Valiant and give him a summary in mentioning there on the basis of him only directing 1 film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgwater & Albion[edit]

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

Not a notable team. Amateur only. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Rod ^talk 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amateur only is not a valid reason for deletion, if we used that same standard then Queen's Park F.C. and Wimbledon RFC should be deleted too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response OK I copied that from Southern Lions Rugby Union Football Club but having looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability I wasn't clear what was considered notable (hence the note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Bridgwater & Albion). If I withdraw the comment re "Amateur only" I still worry that I can't find any RS to show its notability.— Rod ^talk 11:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This club traces it's roots back to 1875, and according to it's website [13] has had at least one England representative play Test rugby while with the club. The league system in England wasn't formed until 1987, so just because the club has never risen high within the league system doesn't mean it was not more highly regarded sometime in it's first 112 years. Is there any information on this? Someone with access to UK newspaper archives may know, I've found a few mentions: [14], [15]. There are no doubt others. My feeling is that this club is notable (even though no longer a strong side), but with older clubs like this it takes a bit more research to know for sure. -- Shudde ^talk 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club has played in the national leagues so therefore it is notable enough for it to have its own article on wikipedia.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Hamish59 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the club has some historical significance - its forerunner clubs date back to the 1870s and as pointed out above it has provided England internationals and British Lions, as shown on the club's website. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BCP67 -MacRùsgail (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artenas Young[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter- single top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flamel Technologies[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was declined. No indication of significance or importance. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, article fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, per nom. -- Scray (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as lacking significant coverage from independent, reliable sources unless the article and its references are substantially improved before the end of the discussion period. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References have been improved. The company is also mentioned in numerous books, but many of these books appear to either be books that simply list all drug makers that fit a particular criteria (e.g. all drug makers with new drugs in a certain market segment) or the coverage is otherwise not significant. I have commented on the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Please also address comments at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Subject is a member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly a state or provincial legislature from the Deoli (Delhi Assembly constituency). Subject is notable as per WP:Politician.(non-admin closure)} Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Jarwal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Did not win any election, hold any post or attracted significant coverage. Cheers AKS 09:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fact is wrong "Did not win any election," . See this.. this is test/vandalism to nominate AfD with wrong facts. GKCH (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Subject is a member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly a state or provincial legislature Subject is notable as per WP:Politician.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Did not win any election, hold any post or attracted significant coverage. Cheers AKS 09:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Contrary to the nom's assertion, Raju Dhingan is a state MLA.[16][17] • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete.The article has already been deleted under WP:A7. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. No news article found and hardly and direct reference in internet search. Cheers AKS 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claim to notability, anyone can join BMI, they are not a label you get "signed" to. Hairhorn (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish him luck, but the time's not yet ripe for an article. Peridon (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in Argentina[edit]

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

This is an unsourced essay and potentially WP:Original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans in Argentina: "If there is an encyclopedic article that can be written about this ethnic group, someone can try to write it another time when they have some good sources to base the article on" CaroleHenson (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a valid article subject, and there is no rule that all unreferenced material ought to be deleted by default. As for OR, no comment has been made on the talk page. --Soman (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman. Unlike the case with Mexicans in Argentina (where I argued in favour of deletion), academic sources for this topic are quite easily located. I added a few to the article, and their bibliographies point to even more possibilities. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good input. I don't know what the process is, but if there's a possibility for me to directly withdraw this one, close it out, other... I'd be happy to do that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salted, article creator already blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HX (hip hop artist)[edit]

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

Could have speedied this as a recreation of an article previouly deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HX (hip hop producer)) but there has been a change: see second reference, but I have doubts about the reliability of the source. First reference, incidentally , does not do what it says on the box. TheLongTone (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, salt and ban the author. We have had more than enough of this guy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Moss[edit]

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

He's only notable for appearances on Big Brother and Survivor (and has only semi notability on the latter show) So, he's really just an ordinary guy who's had fifteen minutes of fame on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Survivorfan1995 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 January 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 January 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for procedural reasons. Nominator has failed to sign the nomination. Nominator agrees that the subject of the article is notable, which is the threshold for inclusion. So why should we delete an article about an admittedly notable person? Also, where is the evidence that this person was only on TV for fifteen minutes, or that their "fame" ended at that point? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Cullen328: 15 minutes of fame isn't a literal fifteen minutes. It's an expression referring to a person with short-lived media publicity. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that Andy Warhol popularized that phrase in 1968, Survivorfan1995, as I enjoyed visiting Manhattan art galleries in those years and was and still am a fan of his work. My comment was ironic and was intended to highlight the fact that you acknowledged notability and notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Moss is covered in significant detail by multiple reliable sources: Entertainment Weekly interview, New York Daily News reports Moss winner of Big Brother 12, Toronto Sun interview, Calgary Herald interview, Dallas Fort Worth Pegasus News reports Moss and girlfriend to compete together, CBS biography, combined with girlfriend's, and Huffington Post reports winner of Big Brother 12. Definitely notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was one of 7 drive by comments all with the same comment. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - Gloss • talk 16:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then keep per Binksternet's well presented arguments (see ad hominem). Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Binksternet has made a sound argument for the subject meeting general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability guidelines have met and is making much wide on Big Brother win. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reason why he should have his own page. There are several gameshows winners who don't have their own pages. He only appeared on two gameshows. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Liautaud[edit]

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

Article may lack notability and has COI issues. Ajaxfiore_talk 03:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable in so far as he's doing something that isn't an ordinary thing to do. Would suggest gutting the article and starting again though. I also note the original COI perp appears to have removed their account. --gilgongo (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"he's doing something that isn't an ordinary thing to do" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete overly self promotional and sorely lacking reliable sources. WillisResilience.com is used as a source which is primary. The only good third party source is ny times. Sources like this add nothing. Article claims he was interviewed by BBC but I found no such record. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – LibStar I found this from the BBC although it's not an interview and here is an interview from ABC. There is also these sources from The Independent: [25], [26] & [27] which aren't currently included in the article. Although the article may need a rewrite due to COI issues, I think there is sufficient reliable sources available to demonstrate this individual has received significant media coverage & would therfore pass WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First I apologize to not login into my account. Fear is the reason why and I cannot give more details. Parker L is the son of a billionnaire and has indeed been inspired by polar travel. Yes you will find many articles about him especially recently. When you have big sponsors and big money, it is easy to be featured in the press (especially online). But the facts claimed on his wikipedia page are lies. He misled the press who "believes" the young boy but veterans explorers aren't fooled. He strictly hasn't broken ANY records http://www.explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?url=south-pole-update_1388156897 In ALL of his expeditions, he was GUIDED by Doug Stoup. The North pole treks he did started from around degree 89 and they went to the North pole at 90 degrees. In adventure terms, no one cares about last degrees (only 111km) as any person could achieve this with a bit of training and a lot of money to join a guided trip. See it as an adventure travel but in (YES) extreme conditions. So he has undertaken 3 LAST DEGREE expeditions to the North pole. Not full lenght polar treks. But don't take me wrong just a last degree is a great achievement for the person doing it, but in the eyes of the public, I'd say it is not harder than climbing Aconcongua for instance, which has been achieved tens of thousands of times. It is just cheaper than a North pole LAST DEGREE trek. For his latest claim about the South Pole. He is not the youngest, he was supported with arctics trucks. If he was really serious about beating a decent speed record to the south pole, he would not film or take many photos and certainly not do a science program. It doesn't make sense to lose time doing that. Imagine a car racer stopping every 10 km to himself measure how many mm of gum he lost on his 4 tyres and measureing the current temperature of the tyres. The only reason to keep this article is that PERHAPS some of the measurements done are really beneficial for science and he is doing talks to inspire. But for now, I believe most of the polar explorers do not accept his claims. But to keep it, it has to be completely rewritten and sure facts must be checked by people who are willing to learn more about polar travel and records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.179.32 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be aware of Wikipedia's policies for information on living persons: WP:BLP. Comments in violation of the policy may be refactored or removed. Ajaxfiore_talk 23:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how does "Parker L is the son of a billionnaire" add to notability? LibStar (talk) 15:51, 4 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been significantly modified by new user Captive Minds 23.[28] Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the intent of the piece was clearly promotional, there is coverage of this fellow all over the internets, for example, The Independent, CNN, and Time magazine. This is a slam-dunk easy Keep and rather an embarrassment to all of us at AfD that this wasn't closed as such days ago. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four international beauty pageants[edit]

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

No source provided to justify "big four"; appears to be original research and synthesis NE Ent 03:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to beauty pageant I can find a few passing media references which talk of the "big four" as such (e.g. this IBT article) but I cannot see much more content than "the big four are" and "Brazil was first to win them all in 2004." This is a remark in the main article, not a separate topic. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty pageant article tackles beauty pageant in general while the article, Big Four international beauty pageants focuses mainly on the four major pageants in which the article can be expanded with various sections in addition to its existing form such as controversies, dethronements, national pageants that have all big four franchises like Turkey, Venezuela, Paraguay, Bolivia, and etc. Given an ample time after this holiday season I may be able to expand the article and put sources to support the article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several third party verifiable sources that support the article written in different languages from different countries and in different newspapers, websites, various national pageant organizations crowning the big four pageants (a.k.a,four major beauty pageant beauty contests, world's four most important beauty contest, Four Major Beauty Pageants) . The following are examples:
- China Daily: 2004 "Now, "Miss Earth" (Miss Earth) beauty pageant and "Miss World" (Miss World), "Miss Universe" (Miss Universe) and "Miss International" (Miss International) and known as the world's four major beauty pageant beauty contests" source, google translate
- Korean Newspaper: Chosun Ilbo: "It is unprecedented for a Miss Korea winner to compete in two of the world's top four beauty pageants (Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International and Miss Earth), acquaintances say. Her goal is apparently to outdo Lee's record." source
- Standard Digital: Kenya News: "Besides gorgeous Natasha Metto, the reigning Miss Kenya, who â representing Africa â won the coveted Miss World Beauty with a Purpose title at the 2010 Miss World pageant at Sanya, China, Kenyan representatives have always had a poor show in the global plat form. In fact, when it comes to the Big Four Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss Earth and Miss International â Kenyan representatives hardly get the sniff of the finals. source
- Gerçek Gündem- TURKEY : "The world's four most important beauty contest "Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Earth" competitions" source translate
- Show America: "The Big Four” (Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International), being both the largest and most famous of the International beauty competitions… source
- The Journal-Scotland: "Major international events such as Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Earth are well documented." source
- Business Times Hong Kong: "Miss Earth", "Miss Universe", "Miss International", "Miss World" are referred to as "the world's four major beauty contest" source, google translate
- Aksam-Turkey: "the world's four most important beauty contest, Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Earth will be represented" source google translate
- Bahamasnet.com: "The Big Four Pageants: Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth and Miss International…" source
- Vietnam Express Newspaper: "Four Major Beauty Pageants, Miss Universe, Miss Earth, and Miss International, but the Miss World competition…" source google translate
- Slovak Moda: "Miss International is the fourth largest international beauty contest in the world. Compete with the Miss Universe, Miss World and Miss Earth." source google translate
- Aachener Nachrichten: "The choice for Miss International, officially "The International Beauty Pageant", applies after Miss World, Miss Universe and Miss Earth as the fourth largest beauty pageant in the world." source google translate
- Latina Express: source google translate
- Gecce- Turkey: source google translate
- Radical- Turkey: source google translate
- Korean Times: source
- Sueddeutsche- Germany: source translate google translate
- Habervitrini- Russia: source google translate
- Sina-China: source
- Haberler: [29] source--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested merger because it is pretty clear that those four are regarded as the pinnacle, and because there is decent testimony to the use of the term. But it's hard for me to see how any much could get said about them in this context than would naturally be said in the main article anyway (and may be now, for that matter: I haven't checked). Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to a merger; considering that there really is significant demand for this as per the Google search count. Why take this away and merge it with the bigger beauty pageant article, wherein people will have to scroll through to get here rather than click this article and then have content specifically suited to your inquiry? I vote, keep.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The suggested basis for deleting this article has been disproved by (some of) the sources cited above. Although a substantial portion of the sources as a whole say only that the four pageants are the 'four biggest', at least some of them, eg the Bahamian and Kenyan ones, appear both to use the expression "big four" and to be reliable sources (particularly if one takes a worldwide view). Additionally, the subject matter of the article appears to be sufficiently distinct from that of beauty pageant to justify a separate article. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some more sources and some are great materials to expand or improve the Big Four article

Those of these that I've checked all say the same thing: "The Big Four are...." There is nothing here that does not fit better into a few sentences in the main article on pageants. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per plethora of sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OnePure[edit]

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

Notability appears to centre on the products being Halal. However all refs appear to be press releases and interviews from such press releases. No refs of any substance and independence. This looks like simple advertising. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Petroni[edit]

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

This looks like a piece of self-promotion by a person of doubtful notability. The article did survive a deletion discussion a few years ago, but consensus can change. PatGallacher (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing isn't good but his bio strongly suggests notability. Most sourcing will be in Spanish and probably offline due to the age, but there are English sources from his time in San Francisco: SF Gate (multiple articles), Democracy for All ("leader of the immigrant rights movement"). Here are some recent Argentinian news sources via Google Translate: [30][31][32][33][34]. -- GreenC 21:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Green Cardamom and his long career in politics in several countries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep but BLP stub It's clear that this guy has some degree of notability. The current uncited and practically first-person-reported state is unacceptable, however, and it needs to be stubbed until it has real sources. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable array of independent nodes[edit]

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

I tried to salvage this article, but I couldn't find substantial independent sources to do so. Basically all sources are primary or highly affiliated with the subject. The RAIN approach was productized by a start-up called Rainfinity which was bought by VMWare/EMC, so there are a few mentions in that direction. There may be enough sources to write about the company (although probably it's better to do so in the parent article[s]), but the tech itself has seen little independent coverage and got no independent traction that I can find. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubhi[edit]

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

Can't find a source for this. I note it was added to Tarkhan (Punjab) earlier this month as the 13th of 12 major clans [35] and later removed. New editor who doesn't seem to have much understanding of Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at this at couple of days ago while trawling through some other contributions by the same editor. There is nothing to support it. Yup, the group probably does exist but it doesn't meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ektaare[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Peripherally attached to some successes, but no mentioned by name in any of the citations, so he is not clearly the focus of any of those news stories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom's assessment. -- GreenC 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TouchMail[edit]

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

A promotional article on the email app of a new start-up, with no indication of its relevance besides the founders being former Microsoft employees. Most references are PRs. Willkey77 (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The Time source appears to qualify as the first reliable independent secondary source. It clearly offers the writer's own thoughts and is not just routine coverage of a press release. The CITE World source is less compelling but sufficient as a second source. CITE World (note the redlink) certainly doesn't have the reputation for fact-checking and editorial control that Time has but it's published by IDG, which does have that reputation. Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the Time source is really strong and focused on the subject, the second source seems very weak, but this might be just my own impression. Willkey77 (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. It's not like we're discussing the notability of Microsoft Windows. I do wonder about whether either of these sources fully establishes the enduring notability asked by WP:NOTNEWS. Otoh, I've just gotten my head slapped pretty badly in the last few days arguing for deletion ([1], [2]) of what seemed to me to be blatantly promotional articles supported by absolutely no reliable independent secondary sources talking about the subject whatsoever. In that second AfD, the best source anyone has found is an obvious wiki page, but other editors like it because it's on an encyclopedia site. So I feel like I'm recalibrating. Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, especially over the question of WP:NOTNEWS, I'm changing to weak keep. Msnicki (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of discussion among references. — Cirt (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 references of which one is a press release and one is a link to the Microsoft app store. IMHO the remaining two are the only ones worth a discussion and of those two only one is really focused on the subject. Willkey77 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I also found http://finance.yahoo.com/news/touchmail-inc-launches-touchmail-modern-040100710.html and http://www.winrtsource.com/2013/04/25/excellent-mail-app-for-microsoft-surface-touchmail-preview/ . Not sure if the second meets RS. Those with two of the refs in the article (Time and Marketwire) seem to help it meet notability guidelines. I'm also hoping that the product will garner more press over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are sufficient. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Stevens (musician)[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician, no chart success or critical attention of any note. TheLongTone (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A modestly notable figure going back to the Merseybeat era. I added a few sources to the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the fixes to bring it up to snuff. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Ray[edit]

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

Non-notable toy. No independent reliable sources establish notability. PROD overturned per anon IP request. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Does not seem notable, but maybe there are Spanish sources that can save the article. The Google results do not seem promising, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography which seems to fail WP:GNG. There are number of passing references to him in independent sources, but these are few and most of the article is based on primary sources:documentation/web sites of projects that he worked on, etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several "keeps" in the previous AfD were predicated on the article improving substantially, but most of that improvement appears to have been based on primary sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few other software developers in a similar situation — software which itself has a bit of notability like Tahoe-LAFS (in-depth coverage of that in independent sources is actually pretty thin, but probably over the GNG bar), but with authors that have less coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zooko's triangle is another barely notable concept (mostly debated on blogs and such, could only find a couple of academic mentions) but I suppose it makes some sense to have a page about the author, in the theory that he originated two artifacts that eek over the GNG line. (A more serious look at the Tahoe-LAFS shows that is basically a commercial product (albeit with open source) that the authors have written an academic paper about, and which got published at a so-so conference. And it got a few academic citations, on par with numerous others academic projects that enjoy a similar level of academic citations, and that don't (and shouldn't) have Wikipedia page. Besides that, there seems to be just one semi-independent article about it (in ArsTechnica), which is at the level of product announcement, with hardly anything in the way of independent evaluation etc. And finally Mnet (peer-to-peer network)/Mojonation appears to have have a similar level of press press coverage -- an announcement at start with the journalist writing it wondering if it will take off or not.) I suspect though this article is going to be kept given the level of fandom Zooko's works enjoy in the blogosphere and on Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the improvements since last nomination till now look better to me than noted above. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2B1 conference[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~Both~~One reference in the article is a WP:primary source. I've found a handful of passing references (such as [36]) but nothing significant. I'm comfortable merging if someone proposes a reasonable target. Pburka (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Close call as to whether notability threshold is met. I believe it is. Conference is associated with and wikilinked with several very notable organizations and initiatives. No significant changes since last AfD which resulted in Keep. ~KvnG 21:17, 3 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H2PL[edit]

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

I had to exclude a whole lot of stuff from a Google search to find any results that might be about this package. A search for the full unabbreviated form also produces no results. For a recent software project, this is good evidence that this one is not notable. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFC Rushden & Diamonds players[edit]

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

This looks like a failure of WP:NLIST:

Other than Chris Hope, none of the players actually have Wikipedia articles.
None of the redlinked players are really likely to get articles. Rushden and Diamonds are a team in the 9th/10th level of the English football league system and are (to my knowledge) an amateur team at that. In the absence of fixtures played with other, more prominent teams, these people are not getting pages any time soon. Ironholds (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NLIST 86.6.128.155 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NLIST. Given the lowly level the team plays at, the list is likely to comprise 99.99% non-notable players for quite some time to come -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure LISTCRUFT, not a notable topic. Giant Snowman 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Far too far down the football hierarchy to warrant the present club having more than a single article (if that). The number of redlinks says it all. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, highly unlikely that this list could link to any significant number of other articles given the low level of the club, so not sure how this list could be of any genuine use. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avery JA-5 Walrus[edit]

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

This self-made individual airplane clearly fails WP:GNG and I couldn't find any reliable sources, prod removed as "clearly flew and the article has references so is notable" which isn't a convincing rationale Delete Secret ^account 23:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic is not notable and the content largely unverifiable. It took me less than a minute to find a factual error; while I could fix that, removing everything else that cannot be verified would effectively amount to deletion anyway. Huon (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no evidence that anyone cared about this one-off homebuilt. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOBODYCARES - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Previous deletion discussions indicate that aircraft that existed and have flown pass the requirement for general notability. A reference to the American Federal Aviation Authority source shows it existed and had flown, another reference to a magazine also backs up the fact that it existed. Sure the article could do with more work and references but that is not a reason to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAA registration is not sufficient proof of notability, and neither is proof of its existence. Notability means that sufficient people cared, and that's what we don't have here. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 4 January 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, SarahStierch (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article describes the history of a prototype canard aircraft that was flight tested and lists actual flight test data. This is a part of history. Performance data can be used by future aircraft designers. Deleting it would remove a valuable data point for future engineers 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.66.11 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is all well and good, the problem is that the history of this aircraft doesn't seem to have been documented anywhere, including not in Janes All The World's Aircraft between 2002-10, which I checked. That means we have nothing to base an article on and even if the article is kept all the unsourced text will have to be removed, which will only leave a few lines. If you know where the history of the aircraft is published then the article can be preserved. - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. "Nobody cares" is one of the worst possible arguments for deletion. However, while it is true that the WP:CONSENSUS for aircraft types is that flying = notability, the article still must be verifiable through reliable sources - which this is not. All sources are promotional, registration databases, or blogs/self-published. If there can be one third-party reliable source found, this passes the "Keep" bar. But unless that happens - it simply can't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see "nobody cared" as an "argument to avoid". And if we cannot find evidence that nobody cared enough to produce more than routine and requisite documentation (in this case the FAA registration), well, that is what notability is all about. Mangoe (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I have to agree with the Bushranger's comments above. This is an interesting aircraft that definitely existed and flew. If we had one solid reference upon which to base an article then this should be kept, but I have been looking everywhere and not finding anything. I even made a special trip to my central library to read through the 2002-10 editions of Janes and drew a blank. As I noted above, even if it is kept it will have to be stubbed to the supportable text, which isn't much. In very practical terms, when an aircraft completely fails to be mentioned in a decade's worth of Janes All The World's Aircraft, it is pretty hard to write a credible article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lyndsey Turner[edit]

The result of this discussion was Keep, but the article was deleted weeks later under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (2nd nomination), which closed with a result of Delete OTRS ticket:2014012210016753 applies. Article re-created by "brand new user". There are legal issues.. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun Empire[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:Artist. No indication of notability, no references whatsoever. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Hmm, tricky one. The band appear to have been independently described as "one of the biggest acts in drum and bass", and there is some evidence of coverage out there. The best I could find in terms of a proper reliable source is an album review from Resident Advisor, but I don't think that quite adds up to meeting WP:MUSICBIO at the present time.
In the event that this does get deleted, we should probably also discuss the notability of their record labels, Black Sun Empire Recordings and Obsessions (record label), though their album articles could be speedied via WP:A9. — sparklism ^hey! 08:20, 2 January 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy based argumets favor deletion Guerillero | My Talk 07:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Super Lap[edit]

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

Appears non-notable. Would go for A7, but video games don't seem to fall under it --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is. Just added some sources. Game is notable, many videos feature this arcade game, and quite a few websites also mention this game.

Tritario (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there is. As of this update, there are still needed to add like the picture/s ( Although, I should be auto-confirmed for 4 days, but not yet, atleast I got more than 10 edits.) and some other stuffs, so, for now, I'll gonna add the links from Youtube, the free-video website. --The Game Expert (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that Youtube is not generally considered a Reliable Source? Google finds me youtube and a handful of forums and blogs - delete unless someone can find reviews for this from the early 90s. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but don't take it slightly. Yeah, I know, but I would like to stay those exterminal links of Youtube and there's nothing to be done and it would be like to be a lousy performance to create more and more links around the web. No expectated issues around this article. It was a reliable source, formely the original one. Sorry and I won't give the reviews, but a good news, you can find this website: [37]. --The Game Expert (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need significant coverage - a column long or so. All that page tells me is that the game existed. Literally none of the sources produced so far that aren't Youtube have anything more than a couple of sentences. You need something like an entire column to show significant coverage. Also that you could create more and more links on the web is why Wikipedia has the wp:RS standard; random web pages that anyone could create aren't good enough precisely because anyone could create them. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more exterminal links to this article for more information and I would have much more detailed informations later on while I'm doing some stuffs there in this related article. --The Game Expert (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add more exterminal links to this article. So, you may tell me if you can as you would update the page, if I can do it properly as much. Again, much like in F1 Exhaust Note, through AfD discussion, I would nominately close this discussion page, resulting to a safe reading of an article, if Wikipedians doesn't have updated list or writings to this article ( F1 Super Lap ). Please feel free to write something to update, or else, I will close this AfD discussion in 2 days later. --The Game Expert (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on the links. The last three (YouTube) do not sow notability. The mamedev one appears to say about it being moved over to the MAME platform, and not about the game in detail (so borderline). The arcade-history one redirects me to the sites homepage, and the last one looks fairly good. Overall, there is only one reasonably good source on the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what's the upcoming updates? Well, I recently like to close this article ( Note: I don't like too much vandalism to this article; but I want some news now and yes, I'm not yet an Admin. sadly.) and I must re-update the pictures also, if I have to do that too. Well, please keep updating much else, ok? Have a God Bless! --The Game Expert (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bevere[edit]

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

does not meet WP:N Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears a long way from wp:AUTHOR Neonchameleon (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found of the critical appraisal required to meet WP:AUTHOR or broader WP:ANYBIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This author has no notability. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back Home (Bee Gees song)[edit]

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

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure WP:OR. Fails WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:SONG for this and the also nominated Tell Me Why (Bee Gees song), The Greatest Man in the World, Where Are You (Bee Gees song). Also for the following nominated songs with no AfD templates on the page (could some admin fix please?) I Don't Know Why I Bother With Myself, It's Just the Way, Remembering (song). Also propose adding to the AfD Second Hand People, How Many Birds, Jingle Jangle, and Birdie Told Me on exactly the same grounds as the above list. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neonchameleon the AfD templates were removed by the author of these articles Samuelpoginavera (talk · contribs). I've restored the templates and warned the user and added all 9 nominated pages to my watchlist. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another poorly-sourced article about an unremarkable Bee Gees song created by this editor. Who is removing the AfD templates from his articles, something he has been warned about. Am assembling a list of the c.25 similar articles for a mass AfD. There is also an editor User:Sam navera with a similar editing obsession and a very similar usename.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And consider the above as a Delete for the additional articles above.TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator(s) of these articles on Bee Gees songs has been at for a couple of years, and I have redirected many of the articles as non-notable in the past. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added more sources on this article. PogiJmon (talk) 6:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Additional sources do not establish the song's notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Rodón Naveira[edit]

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

I do not think that there is actually any notability here.

I see no evidence she is the senior physical sciences manager, despite what the article says, but rather a senior physical sciences manager; ref.2 lists her as Senior Safety Technical Manager. The actual work accomplishments are "involved with" or "participates in" or "supported" or something of the sort DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was the first Hispanic woman to hold the Deputy Directorship for the Environmental Sciences Division within the National Exposure Research Laboratory. Plus she is responsible for developing, coordinating and maintaining research and educational activities in support of NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center mission. I believe that being "first" among her people in such an important delicate position in a semi-governmental agency such as NASA makes her notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge number of bios from "first hispanic to do INSERT DEBATABLE ACHIEVEMENT HERE" around. Her notability should be based on her works regardless of her origins. --damiens.rf 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is WP:OTHERSTUFF and, thus, irrelevant here. As for the second statement, her notability -is- based on her achievements (erroneously called "works" above). So what you are saying amounts to agreement on how to reword the lede to reflect achievement vs. ethnic origin, namely, a WP:Content dispute. As such, your comment belongs in a WP:DISPUTE forum, not here. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or fix. The article, as it stands, do not show the subject's notability. --damiens.rf 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is 6 January 2014 and, since your 26 December 2013 comment above, the article was expanded from 5,723 bytes to 9,119 - an almost 100% expansion. Yet you have remained mysteriously quiet. Nothing personal, but you seem to have failed to stand up to the plate and update the basis of your stand accordingly. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Certainly, first member of [ethnic minority] to hold [lesser leadership position] at [marginally notable research institute] is not by itself grounds for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, too, is obsolete. The article -was- expanded (since the comment was made) to show that her notability was not based on being the first person from a certain ethnic background to accomplish something but that she was the first person to accomplish something period, or that she accomplished unique as reflected in The Awards Bestowed Upon Her and subsequently memorialized by the WP:RS that reported it. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're free to express your opposition to it, of course, but I stand by my opinion. Perhaps if there were two sources at the level of the Newton book, I might change my mind, but the other sources that were added don't convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mercy11: The awards you mentioned (listed in the article) are all non-notable in and of themselves (for example none of them have their own WP page, nor are they documented by secondary sources). Agricola44 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - The article and her notability are perfectly in line with every applicable WP policy. That she is senior, junior, or something in between, who cares? what matters is that she has been recognized extensively by many authorities and she has numerous newspapers, magazines and publishers WP:RS's that have reported on her work and accomplishments and that her work is cited by yet many other scientific authorties. I am not sure how anyone can say she is not notable with the load of accolades she has to her credit. Certainly a KEEP. Mercy11 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She meets WP:BASIC quite easily since she:

[...] has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The first independent & secondary reliable source comes from the book Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions by David E. Newton; see her bio within the book at: [38] where she is covered exclusively.

She is then covered once again exclusively by Latina Style at [39].

And then she is covered by The Antelope Valley Times at [40]

Not only that, but she also meets WP:PROF per Criterion #2 which establishes that academics meeting this criterion are notable if:

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Rodón has received not one, but two "highly prestigious honors at the national level". Namely, her EPA Silver Medal for Superior Service and her EPA Suzanne Olive EEO and Diversity Award. The Silver Medal is awarded for (see [41]):

[...] for Agency and Government-wide leadership in presenting holistic, cross-media environmental data to the public; and demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of EPA-wide data integration

So, the whole sum of all these facts make her notable by our standards: she is covered by reliable sources + she is "unusual". The fact that she was the first Hispanic woman director is ancillary to this matter. She is notable for other hierarchically higher characteristics.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see abundant sourcing, real-world achievements, professional and peer recognition.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to keep this one, and I really hope more sources will be forthcoming, but I don't see the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Nor are the awards "highly prestigious academic award[s] or honor[s] at a national or international level" -- they do not satisfy WP:PROF. Her h-index appears to be 2, which doesn't pass WP:PROF either. The coverage in Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions might tip the balance, but I can't see that online. -- 101.119.29.11 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm,,,, "facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, an anonymous response! It's nice to see that irony is not dead. And the comment above does present "facts and evidence." -- 101.119.29.186 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this link working for you for the book citation: [42] It's working for me. Here's a screenshot for your convenience: [43] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't seem to work in Australia. The screenshot certainly demonstrates that there's coverage of the subject, although it doesn't say very much (other than the fact that the subject has a famous mother). -- 101.119.29.172 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant scientific impact. It's hard for administrators to demonstrate notability but I guess that's the career they choose. Xxanthippe (talk).

The word "impact" is not used anywhere in the pertinent Polices and guidelines, that is, WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:BIO. As such, this argument lacks merit, grounds and validity. Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed here are enough to establish notability.--Jmundo (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. -- 101.119.29.108 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Suckup". Mercy11 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that kind of personal remark is helpful here. Perhaps instead you could dig out more sources, which might cause editors to change their !vote? Or perhaps you could verify whether the Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions book contains enough to satisfy WP:GNG? -- 101.119.28.143 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not personal; it is the term used in the link provided and I reused it as appears. A copy if the term (Suckup) then facilitates searching and finding the expanded description text in the link. You should not take it personal, it was meant for the closing admin, not you. It was not meant for you personally or about you personally, but about your comment. It's my opinion of your comment and was simply stating that others (link provided) also see those types of commnets like that - you provided a !vote, not a discussion contribution as explained there. You should not take it personal.Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here is meant for the closing admin, obviously...and such remarks are personal and tend to inflame what we hope to keep as a civil debate. Next time, please just cite the policy. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The above "keep" !votes are mostly vague assertions, "real-world achievements" and the like, or list local sources. At first glance, the strongest pro-argument seems to be the EPA silver medal, but this does not yet appear to be recognized as a notable award. None of the other awards in the "accolades and recognitions" section are major, or recognized either. Most of the sources are web-pages, an all-too-frequent occurrence on WP that we should all be trying to remedy (some of these are actually broken links). The bio in "Latinos in Science, Math, and Professions" is solid. If one or two more WP:RS like this could be found, it might be enough for WP:GNG pass. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The policy says: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Since Latinos... is solid plus there other multiple sources listed that are consistent with "Latinos...", then she is notable. It's that simple. Mercy11 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, it's not that simple. The other sources are mostly web pages (ephemeral, not independent of subject, and some broken links). The Antelope Valley source is merely a community webzine. The Latina Style piece helps, but the overall source base is not enough. The article strains to make the subject appear notable (a link to the EPA award which actually goes to a general page, repeating the Latinos in Science ref to make the source list appear longer, etc). Moreover, the assertions of notability are very weak, for example first Hispanic woman to serve as a branch chief: this is a middle-management position in the aerospace sector (govt and commercial), so this milestone is not notable per se. Ditto for being "frequently invited as a speaker on scientific topics" ... These are the routine activities of scientists and engineers. If you'll pardon a blunt assessment, the subject appears to be a very competent but very average mid-level aerospace worker. Agricola44 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What's wrong with an online web-anything? Following that webzine logic we would have to argue that online institutions, such as online banks like Ally and CapitalOne, should also be stayed away from. Where does AVT say it is a webzine? That "about" link simply talks about their history. Even if it was an online magazine, what's wrong with that so long as they have their own editorial staff? IAE, since they state the are a news provider, the "magazine" label would be incorrect as it is in the order of an online newspaper. And following that logic, we won't be able to cite the NYT when it does go entirely online. Again, let's not judge the policy, it states there is no fixed number of sources needed. Likewise for the label of "middle manager"...do you need to become a scientist-CEO or an University President-scholar to be notable? If a mix of sources are writing about her plus others are writing about her writings, wouldn't that be plenty notability? We need to go by the policy, not by our perception of what a given source -of many- is or is not, right? Mercy11 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the (1) Antelope Valley source (they call themselves an online community news forum) is an important contribution to notability and (2) that the fact that she is a mid-level worker does not really matter. I disagree on both points. As for point (1), there is a hierarchy of sources. For example, the NYT and my neighborhood newspaper both, in fact, have editorial staffs, but a mention in the latter counts for little, since the bar for inclusion is very low. (They tend to write articles like "2nd grade votes Mrs. Jones teacher of the month" and such.) The Antelope Valley source is much closer to this than it is to being a piece in the NYT and, in my opinion, does not go to notability. (Otherwise, every "Mrs. Jones" would be notable.) As to point (2), the article needs a substantive assertion of notability and it must be something more than her job description as a mid-level scientist/manager or that she is "frequently invited as a speaker". Because of her background and employment, WP:PROF is probably the relevant guideline and it is pretty specific as far as the different ways as person might satisfy the notability requirement. Frankly, I'm just not seeing it in this case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I didnt say she was a mid level worker - you did. I didnt say she was a mid-level manager - you did. What I did say is that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected," and this article fulfills both. If we read up on Antelope Valley, it is obvious why the Antelope Valley Times would not have time to cover Mrs Jones' 2nd grade class: with a dozen high schools and several universities in its Valley area, Mrs. Jones 2nd grade students just couldn't make it into their paper. The AVT is not the primary source here; its only one of many. Mercy11 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that she is indeed a mid-level manager, and this does not contribute to notability (there are many, many such). Also, the Antelope Valley Times is a local paper that does not contribute to notability; many people get mentioned in such papers, as Agricola44 points out. I think the best claim to notability is the single book source, but even it doesn't seem to say much other than mention the subject's more notable mother. The subject also fails WP:PROF. -- 101.119.27.219 (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New anonynympus IP account that -- from his wikilinked argument and his one lonely single edit -- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Seems likely. Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A dynamic IP address perhaps? But maybe you could leave that to the closing admin, and look for sources establishing notability, if indeed they exist. -- 101.119.28.232 (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Ahmed Zai[edit]

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

Non-notable person, self-publicising, without reliable sources. Perhaps an Urdu speaker could find some. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Another self promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zai holds the senior position in the Board of Education (intermediate) in Karachi which is Pakistan's largest city. His Urdu name is انوار احمد زئی , via Google Translate: [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Article has some cut and paste CV information from a who's who website, but that is easily deleted. -- GreenC 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources prove existence buy not notability, Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most references refer to him to "Asaram's son". His father is famous, his notability is questionable. Notability is not not inherited. He was recently accused for sexual misconduct, so suddenly there are plenty of web references to him in news. Till 2012, [52] he is mentioned in news for crimes he was accused, but there is no proof he is notable as a "spiritual leader, singer, lyricist and poet". Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus & closure as Keep of recent Afd (<3 months ago), Gnews searches which exclude most recent results seem to show significant coverage for a number of controversies over the last several years. Article may need expansion if anything... Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just had a recent AfD and it closed Keep and there is significant coverage both before and after the recent rape allegations against Narayan Sai. Also there is nothing wrong with being the son of a famous person, it's impossible for any source to mention him without also mentioning his father. WP:INHERIT is "arguments to avoid during AFD" i.e. arguments for wikipedia editors to avoid making .. no one here is making an inherit argument (except the nom) .. INHERIT does not prevent the sources themselves from mentioning that a person has famous parents. If reliable sources choose to cover a person in whatever way that is significant, it is a sign of notability, INHERIT (an essay) does not negate GNG or reliable sources. -- GreenC 17:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point Redtiger raises here is that subject isn't notable for being a guru as such. Also, as he hasn't been found guilty of any crimes, thus fails WP:CRIMINAL. But hasn't he been covered sufficiently in recent news? All it might be called as recentism, but we do consider single-event notability also. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but Redtiger has nailed it. He's 100% correct if he's saying that sources refer him as "narayan sai, son of asaram", i would definitely like to know that before these all popularly termed "allegations", "arrests", "propaganda", "conspiracy", etc, who knew his name? Maybe it will be hard to find even 1/10,000 people. And if someone did, it was/is solely because of his father. WP:CRIMINAL is contradictory to this page as well, innocent until proven guilty. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sources exist about him from before the rape allegations. It doesn't matter so much if he is the son of another famous person (see my comment above, WP:INHERIT doesn't negate sources, only arguments made by Wikipedia editors, and no Wikipedia editor is arguing he is notable because of his father). Nor does CRIMINAL matter since he is covered by WP:GNG sourcing, a person who is innocent can be notable so long as there are multiple reliable independent sources that have significant coverage. -- GreenC 07:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC

How is WP:GNG satisfied? '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail' is violated. News reports (which feature on 7th or 8th pages on newspapers) covering controversy about Asaram's son, is really not significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS. Except this father's cult websites, its biography or works are not covered anywhere. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about his father, Narayan Sai is just forced to be on screen for the crimes for which he's still not convicted. Person need no biography or separate page, only a 2 liner in his father's wiki page. That's it Bladesmulti (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It involves ~~the whole~~ multiple members of the family. -- GreenC 19:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, but really anyone would think that even their wives are alleged with some criminal case, if you directly tell "it's whole family." Bladesmulti (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry "whole family" is an expression. I have changed it so "anyone" doesn't literally interpret "whole family" to mean the grandfather, grandmother, aunt, uncle, wives, their parents and and so on. The source makes it clear who is involved. -- GreenC 16:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Asaram Bapu. I feel the individual lacks notability. However, the info/news about him is worth to be included in his father - Asaram's article. Jethwarp (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look at the information that's in the article that's not related to the arrests. There's almost nothing there. If he was notable, we would have sources that make it possible to write an article containing more than his name, occupation, and a mention that he's related to a famous person. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was other sourced information from before the arrest, but it was deleted. -- GreenC 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - not notable outside of the association with his father. WP:BLPCRIME. etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Yes, and a 2 liner about him on father's page, like I added before. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Sources in the article support WP:GNG and those in the previous AfD add more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This person is not popular at all for individual purpose! I don't know which part you have given importance to. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. We're not discussing a popularity contest but rather guidelines for inclusion. There are a sufficient number of RSes to support its inclusion on GNG grounds alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a weeks late response, i thought you would had came up with something special, but you haven't. This guy is referred only because of his father, not because of his own. Who knew him before sept 2012? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one in this AfD is arguing he is notable because of his father (and even if they did it could still be a valid argument, see WP:INHERIT#top). The WP:INHERIT essay is "arguments for Wikipedia editors to avoid making during an AfD". INHERIT does not say "ignore sources", nor does it say that the sources themselves must comply with the Inherit essay (ie. sources are allowed to discuss topic in context of his father). GNG takes precedent over INHERIT, which is not a must-comply rule if someone believes a topic is notable. -- GreenC 03:48, 9 January 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice to re-creation if Spanish-language sources are found. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Figueroa[edit]

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

PROD was removed with no statement on the talk page or improvement otherwise. Appears to fail GNG based on research on the talk page and by the original PROD nominator. Perhaps others can show citations for her Dressage awards. SarahStierch (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tried to move it to AfD, therefore to discusse it here. Now, according to user @Timtrent:, this person is notable, but just in need of foreign (in this case, Spanish) sources.--Mishae (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability and I'm very concerned about the conflict of interest. If there are Spanish language sources that attest to her notability, it's rather surprising that Spanish wikipedia doesn't already have an article about her. Deb (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every article exists in other languages, so you can't just say that because the article is not present anywhere else, it means that she is not notable.--Mishae (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read what I said, rather than trying to twist my words. Deb (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your words are as follows: If there are Spanish language sources that attest to her notability, it's rather surprising that Spanish Wikipedia doesn't already have an article about her, means exactly what I stated. I write numerous articles on numerous Russian physicists, but they don't exist in Russian Wikipedia, doesn't mean that they are not notable.--Mishae (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability and conflict of interest. Hafspajen (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I won't object to deletion, but then what was it doing on [Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession AfC]? Plus, since Timtrent won't respond I will need to post the discussions myself. I need to apologize, I miss read it. However, I still think that Spanish links are a must. I also need to mention that COI is no longer an issue, as of December of this year. Also, all of you need to read Notability section on its talkpage, and only after that make your RfDs if you please.--Mishae (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You ask "what was it doing on [Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession AfC]?" The answer is: User:LauraFigueroa333, who is the subject of the article, put it there herself. Deb (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, does she have a right to do it? If not, someone from the AfC crew have overlooked it.--Mishae (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL, yes, anyone can make a request but you are expected to look for proper references before you create an article, regardless of whether it's been requested! Deb (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The statement Mexican Dressage Champion ought to set antennae twitching that she is notable, if only for this item. Notability requires only that it can be referenced, though it is far better if it is referenced, obviously. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does appear that this cannot be referenced. Mishae claims the existence of Spanish-language sources but cannot point to any. Deb (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason why I can't point to any is because I don't know Spanish, not because I am lying. Same thing goes with the article that you deleted first, Moustafa Youssef. As Randykitty said, he is notable. I just can't find any bio in English other then CV and GS. Unfortunately, I am not, know all guy, and therefore need someone to find those sources. I know only Russian, English and a hair bit of Ukrainian, (non of those languages that I know fit here). Same thing goes about my articles on French, Italian, German, Israeli, Greek, and Arabic notables. I don't know any of those languages but I believe that someone who knows them might come for help... For example, I wrote an article on notable Japanese oncologist, someone from that nation inserted a verifiable text in Japanese. Another example was me, without knowing that language translating a portion of a site, and didn't got my article to be nominated for deletion (can't find which one).--Mishae (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one is suggesting that you are lying. I have spent some time looking for references but cannot find any. Unless a Spanish-speaking contributor wants to join this discussion and find the references for us, the claim remains unverifiable. The only reference you ever had for the information in this article was Laura Figueroa's personal website. She referred you to anccemex, the organisation she says organised the Mexican dressage championships, so I searched their website and there is no reference to her: see [53]. For the moment, the claim is unverifiable and so the article should never have been created. Deb (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose my keep is more that this truly ought to be sourceable, but appears not to be at present. My comment on the article's talk page applies regarding her art vs her horsemanship. I only care from a technical perspective, but not that much. Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sufficient English-language sources. This page is better off in the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylar Jean (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources do not have to be in English in order to be valid. It is not even preferable that they are. Fiddle Faddle 13:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I personally prefer them to be in English, that way our readers can understand what the sources are saying, however, if I don't find the English language ones, I surely use the foreign press.:)--Mishae (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the best I could do: Laura Figueroa, just added another source which is probably unverifiable.--Mishae (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence that she meets either WP:ATHLETE or WP:ARTIST. Being a national champion in a sport does not confer notability. I can find no evidence for her competing at the highest level of her sport. Note that the article indicates the championships were in classical dressage versus modern dressage which is an Olympic sport. I can also find no evidence of her meeting notability as an artists. Although there may be Spanish language sources out there, I didn't run across any. -- Whpq (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Genske[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, most hits are about clients and work, not about the person. And the article is also most about the company, not about him. The Banner talk 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agents can be notable, if they are along the lines of Scott Boras. That Genske was the agent to numerous high profile players does not make him notable. All coverage is in passing, and not in significant depth as required by WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I Think the Sports Business Daily profile pushes him over the threshold but it's by a slim margin. Article certainly needs better sourcing as the client list is entirely unsourced. Perhaps rename the article to focus more on the Agency itself. Spanneraol (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was gonna say that Sports Business Daily profile is really about the agency, and not about the agent. An article on the agency might be notable, but the agents seems not to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully saved this article to the Baseball Wiki. BTW, that's NOT spam, it's just an information that i use to save articles to Wikia projects before they probably cease to exist--Saviour1981 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in my opinion you are spamming that wikia thingy with that link. The Banner talk 23:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more time the accusation of spam and the AIAV will await of you --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no serious arguments left so you start making threats.

The Banner talk 00:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not funny :-( --Saviour1981 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - conditional. The current article is nothing but spam for The Legacy Agency. Remove the The Legacy Agency section those irrelevant lists of clients and then see what's left. If reliable, in depth, 3rd party sources can be found to assert notability per WP:BIO, then keep, but otherwise delete without prejudice to creating a stand alone article for The Legacy Agency if it can pass WP:GNG and WP:Org. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though I agree with Kudpung on the current status of the article, I disagree with The Banner on GNG - via HighBeam Research, I found several articles that seem to go beyond "trivial mentions" and thus would satisfy GNG, as well as one regarding him as a trial lawyer prior to sports – [54][55][56][57] – while admittedly those articles do not directly pertain to him, rather to his advocacy for his clients, outside of a feature article on him, nothing is going to directly pertain to him. As such, I support keeping the article, albeit a rather weak support. Go Phightins! 20:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly sourced which makes this person not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUST. The fact that the article is poorly sourced is not by itself reason to delete anything. Spanneraol (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here about a living person. So WP:BLP applies. The Banner talk 20:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and kudos for a very well researched nom. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank L. Hoffman[edit]

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

Delete because the subject of article fails general notability guideline and WP:BIO. The article was formerly tagged for notability issues and was PRODed at one time, but the creator of the article removed the tags.

The article does cite a large number of sources, but this is deceptive -- Hoffman does not pass general notability. To the extent that the biographical content in the article is supported by sources, the sources are not independent of the subject. Most of the content is sourced to his website, all-creatures.org, or his Facebook page, or websites of other organizations whose content is hosted on the all-creatures website. Many of the other reference citations and external links in the article either have no apparent relevance to the article or are cited in support of some statement or factoid that is, at best, peripheral to the article. (For example, an Amazon page about Rabbi Schmuel Asher is cited in support of a statement about Rabbi Asher; there is no citation support for the article's statement about Hoffman's relationship to Asher. Another reference citation explains the etymological derivation of the term "methodism", apparently to support some original research about Hoffman's theology.) The closest thing to third-party coverage that I have found for Hoffman consists of interviews on local community radio stations. His name also has been mentioned in passing in at least one newspaper article (in the Berkshire Eagle) and there's an item (one that I can't see) in the Cherry Hill, New Jersey, newspaper that is cited in a fashion that suggests that he might be mentioned in it, or possibly wrote it. Interviews on community radio and passing mentions elsewhere do not indicate notability. (Also note that at least one of his local radio appearances was on Animals Today Radio, which is sponsored by an organization on whose board of directors he serves: [58].)

The main personal accomplishments documented in the article are serving as minister for several local churches and operating the all-creatures.org website. These are worthy activities, but they don't pass WP:BIO. Orlady (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what Orlady has stated. Another example is the section "Recognition by evangelical Christian groups" under the "Recognition" section. Three refs are used. First one goes to his website. The second goes to a forum that has who knows what (has Hitler and Bush saluting). The third is on a personal blog type site that has a short sermon of Hoffman's. The three unreliable sources show absolutely no recognition and do not source the paragraph. The sources in the article not related to Hoffman's websites have brief mentions or interviews. Does not pass WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Orlady's very thorough assessment of the sources. Undoubtedly fails general notability guideline and WP:BIO. Finnegas (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion: A7, G11. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PSY Maniac[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable video game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 02:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Surely doesn't show notability, recently created. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Relief special (Only Fools and Horses)[edit]

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

It's too soon for an article about a TV programme that will not air for 3 months (and obviously we don't know if it even will air). And per [:[WP:FUTURE]], Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. Maybe in a couple of months, depending on how long it is. We have no infomation about it at all, othe rthan the date. Do we even know who will be in it/? Spockyt (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America's Next Top Model (cycle 11). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Potter[edit]

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

Has a little significance on notability after she lost on a modelling show, though fails WP:BLP1E. And as for now, will be redirect to America's Next Top Model (cycle 11). ApprenticeFan ^work 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect - Plausible redirect but the subject doesn't meet WP:NMODEL and, as the nominator points out, WP:BLP1E applies to her appearance on the 11th series of America's Top Model. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyTalk Animator[edit]

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

Article fails to comply with WP:GNG. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I've also nominated CrazyTalk for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrazyTalk. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nomination, fails GNG. Brian Reading (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyTalk[edit]

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

Article fails to comply with WP:GNG. Codename Lisa (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I've also nominated CrazyTalk Animator for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrazyTalk Animator. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with original poster. This article looks more like a promotional campaign than a legitimate article. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aliados characters[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is award winning and popular. Character and episode lists are reasonable supplements to the main article. Merging might be worth discussing, but I think the list approach is generally accepted practice. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure that it violated WP:GNG specifically but in my opinion the show is not an English language show and it is not appropriate to create other articles other than the main one about it. The English language Wikipedia should be home to character pages of English language shows. Newsjunky12 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absolutely the wrong answer. We don't disfavor subjects from non-English language culture just because we are writing articles in English. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Candleabracadabra. Character descriptions for notable series are standard (and it's the notability of the series that matters; this is merely part of our coverage of that series), and whether they should be WP:SPLIT into stand-alone lists is purely a matter of WP:SIZE. I think this could very well be merged to Aliados, but that's ultimately an editing decision for editors familiar with the subject to make. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All notable shows have character list articles, always have, and always will. Dream Focus 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason the page was created in the first place was to avoid clutter on the main page. If you take a look at the same article on the spanish wiki you'll see that there's a lot of chracter info jumbled together. Kiki360 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an apparent WP:SPINOUT from Aliados. I'm not opposed to a merge of this back to Aliados though, per WP:SIZERULE, since Aliados is only at around 13.5 kb. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newsjunky12 is completely wrong. This is Wikipedia in English; the only thing that means is that the articles are written in English language. There are no different rules for articles whose topics come from English-speaking countries or countries with other languages; and if those last ones usually have less quality and coverage it's simply because of systemic bias Cambalachero (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cartagena Plaza[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG or any of the roads notability guidelines regarding traffic circles. Prod removed five days after it was expired, with a weak rationale Delete Secret ^account 00:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that it violates WP:GNG. More specifically the bullets 1, 3, and possibly 4 on the WP:GNG article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsjunky12 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It violates WP:GNG and besides that point, no one even cares about it. There is no point of it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOBODYCARES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable traffic circle. --Admr Boltz 23:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable traffic circle on non-notable roadways. Dough 48 72 04:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable traffic circle. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per nom. aycliffe^talk 17:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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