Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 June 2 July >

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MJ mohamed Iqbal[edit]

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

No indication of importance, just a branch manager. Effectively unsourced (as external links are not sources) The Banner talk 23:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only few claims to notability are in Author section, but those are all unsourced.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing significant on GS. SMIEEE does not quite help. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability provided by current references or a Google search.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus herein is that the subject is notable per Wikipedia's standards. Discussion about article improvements can always continue on the article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ferri[edit]

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

Recreation of an article, previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario F. Ferri, about a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Does not qualify for speedy deletion as a G4, as both the content and the sourcing have been expanded significantly — however, the sourcing relies extremely highly on local community weeklies which do not pass our reliable sourcing rules due to insufficiently wide distribution (the number of footnotes here would be more than halved if I stripped all of those), and this version still doesn't actually resolve the basic notability problem since he's still just a city councillor in a non-metropolitan suburban city. The long-ago consensus to redirect all of Vaughan's city councillors to Vaughan City Council on notability grounds still holds true, and this latest iteration of the article still does not actually demonstrate that he's somehow attained more notability than any of the others. In addition, it warrants mention that this version was created by the same person who persistently argued in the previous discussion that the deletion nomination was motivated by ideological dislike of Ferri as an individual, rather than by the neutral reading of Wikipedia's inclusion rules that it actually was — to be perfectly honest, I actually suspect an outright conflict of interest by a member of Ferri's own campaign staff here, although I cannot definitively prove that. Redirect, yet again, to Vaughan City Council and salt the earth. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You probably wasn't aware of it, but you can view a longish discussion at [1], but this was reviewed by DGG (the early version only), EdJohnston and myself, who reviewed it before it was moved into main space, so this isn't a bad faith "recreation" and certainly wasn't a disruptive one. As for notability, there isn't any singular event that necessarily pops but his overall work as an activist is fairly well documented (and sourced) and the totality of it seems to pass WP:GNG. As for salting, the fact that he approached me as someone who participated in the previous AFD, and others were involved with assisting him, and didn't move it into mainspace until it was clear that others thought it was possibly notable, just shows salting would be overkill. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dennis pinged me since I had previously given an opinion on the question of a new article. In my view the previous version was validly deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario F. Ferri but the article is now changed enough to be worth keeping. Ferri's notability is primarily due to his work on the Keele Valley Landfill controversy, an environmental issue that unquestionably deserves coverage. In my opinion the article is still a bit fluffy and it might be shortened to focus on the landfill issue. His being an elected councillor and a Deputy Mayor of Vaughan are interesting enough to mention though they wouldn't justify an article on their own. Most of the lead is fine but only the last sentence of the lead is starting to shade off into less important material. His service as a guest lecturer doesn't need mention in the article, unless one of his speeches is widely quoted or syndicated. Administering community recreational facilities is less important and is not in the same league as being a community organizer. There appear to be too many references and they could be pruned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article creator was not notified of this discussion, I have taken it upon myself to notify him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bearcat, a little decorum may be in order as the conflict of interest dis is, imho, out of order. I've also edited articles on other politicos such as Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps but have yet to receive an Order of Canada medal. Hmmm. I did note however that you, Bearcat, yourself edited the Mario Ferri article twice as shown on these diffs here and here, prior to Ferri declaring himself a Liberal Party candidate, after which time his bio article was deleted, which is highly curious. If I previously thought your action might have been 'ideological' kindly forgive me, but perhaps you might explain those diffs: were they wrong in editing his article prior to his Liberal nomination, or was it wrong in having the article deleted afterwards? More importantly Mario Ferri is, again, imho, notable under WP:GNG for being a community activist as clearly discussed in the article's lede, and that's established by more than 25 articles sourced from major media, specifically the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, National Post and the Toronto Sun. There are at least 50 photos of him leading protests, victory celebrations or other community events among the articles (specifically 26 discrete photos of him at events, plus 25 'stock' photos the papers used for political stories). There were likely more photos of him as well as many text-only news articles were pulled out from electronic databases. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't do yourself any favors by personalizing this. Please just comment on the merits of the discussion and avoid talking about other editors. In the end, the merits are the only things that the closer will consider and you hurt your case. Per DGG below, now would be a good time to go and clean up the article even more, removing the more minor things. That is the best use of your time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Points noted—I agree that the merits of the article are salient. Per the suggestions here the article has been trimmed and refined; the two quotes by Ferri have been removed and two sections have been combined. If there are other criticisms of Ferri in reliable sources I will also included them, please note them on my Talk page. HarryZilber (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the promotionalism. Possible keep if and only if the tone is improved by radical deletion of the promotional and duplicative material. What I mean by the promotional term is the very large amount of self-serving quotes and inclusion of minor issues, the inclusion of detailed material on the landfill controversy that should rather be in the article on it (which is possibly but not certainly a general public issue justifying a separate article) , and in the use of adjectives of judgment and praise throughout. Such uncited material is wholly appropriate in a BLP. I regard the inclusion of such material as diagnostic of improper promotionalism, and as reasonably raising questions of COI, though certainly many well-meaning editors write this way here because they see so much of it here that they understandably but wrongly think it acceptable, and because so much of the rest of the world writes in that manner. (if the editor has been writing on other politicians, they should now recheck them for similar problems) I don't think Bearcat was wrong to raise the question, tho I would have just hinted at it because I think it would be obvious in any event.
When my opinion was asked on Dennis Brown's talk p., I said that I personally would probably !vote for deletion, but that it ought to have another chance at AfD. I know myself more deletionist than average about local people and events, but in giving advice, I say what I think the community is likely to do, not what I think it ought to do. In doubtful cases, the community should be asked directly, as it is being very properly asked here.
Harryzilber, I see no indication at all of what you seem to charge about Bearcat: such gross bias (as distinct from more subtle usually unconscious influences) is very rare here. Almost everyone here will make routine fixes on an article when we see them without necessarily judging it for inclusion on WP, and that's what seems to have happened here. Further, I and many of us will try fixing an article, sometimes making multiple non-trivial edits, before finally deciding we can not fix it enough, and then nominate it for deletion. And, additionally, people change their mind-- sometimes making snap judgements that they come to think better of. And , finally, the best of us make a few percent of plain errors, and a larger number of omissions, and I hope we all of us have the grace to correct them when we realize. Ideally, Bearcat should have noticed Dennis in the edit history and checked, but I too will often look primarily at the article as it stands, without checking every earlier version. His only real error, as I see it, was in not notifying the editor. The only way we will ever prevent such errors is to do it by bot. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is a reasonably written description of Ferri that also includes criticisms, specifically: "...for a perceived conflict of interest related to the use of a community centre building where he met with constituents to consult on community issues and his nomination to regional council,[71] as well as his participation in a Santafest parade float on the eve of an election.[72]" The latter article referenced was written partly in jest using phrasings such as "Cries of Humbug Over Santa Parade" and "Ferri, co-chair and founder of the local Santafest Committee, is being roasted like a chestnut". Both articles are sourced from the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper. Ferri's role as an activist who took on a provincial government over 14 years to correct a significant source of watershed pollution that would feed into Lake Ontario (where dozens of cities, both Canadian and U.S. draw their drinking water) was noted on national media and qualifies him under GNG; that he also became a politician does not detract his notability or disqualify him from Wikipedia. Its also worth pointing out that the premise for deleting the Ferri article due to him being 'a Vaughan councillor' was incorrect. As noted earlier Ferri was also deputy mayor for Vaughan who led both council and the city when the mayor was absent (including one city hall session that became so rowdy that he called in the police). Attempting to delete an article for a person being a local councillor while disregarding his role as deputy mayor has the appearance of being unbalanced. HarryZilber (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being the deputy mayor doesn't get a person any closer to passing our inclusion rules than any other city councillor — in most cities it's not a role that one person holds permanently, but rather a role that rotates among all city councillors at different times during a council term (and would thus completely nullify our inclusion standards for city councillors). And in all cities it's little more than a courtesy title which only means he chairs the meeting if the mayor's away and gets first crack at stepping up to the plate if the mayor dies or resigns, and confers virtually no special authority of any kind. A deputy mayor, for example, has exactly no authority to start implementing his own political agenda, different from that of the mayor, just because he's chairing a meeting or two. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claims that Ferri, as Deputy Mayor of a medium size city has "no authority to start implementing his own political agenda" and that "in most cities [the Deputy Mayor] it's not a role that one person holds permanently, but rather a role that rotates among all city councillors" are disingenuous at best. Vaughan's Mayor himself is the nominal head of council with only one vote of nine on issues that are decided by vote, meaning anything of importance. The Mayor thus has no more independent authority to implement his own political agenda and must negotiate with the others on council to achieve his/her goals, just as is the case with the Deputy Mayor. Since the Deputy Mayor of Vaughan is NOT a rotating position, but is elected by the Regional Councillor receiving the greatest number of votes (described in the article which you apparently missed), Ferri was elected to his position as Deputy Mayor. Since he was elected to his position as deputy mayor and as he was effectively 'a heartbeat away' from being mayor of the medium-size city, which all other councillors knew when dealing with him, he merits more respect and consideration for inclusion under WP:NOTABILITY than an ordinary councillor, wholly aside from his WP:GNG notability as a community activist/organizer. HarryZilber (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a person does not merit special notability consideration just for being a deputy mayor. If the city they were deputy mayor of is not one whose city councillors are considered notable just for being city councillors, then the deputy mayor does not get any special status above any of the others. And the fact that different cities choose their deputy mayors in different ways — some cities directly elect them, some just automatically accord the title to whichever councillor happened to achieve a particular distinction (such as the highest vote total among councillors), some give the mayor the power to choose the deputy of his choice, and some rotate the position so that everybody on council gets to hold the title for a specific length of time — does not change anything either, so the fact that Vaughan chooses its deputy mayor differently than Toronto or North Bay or Sudbury do does not make "deputy mayor" a more notable title in Vaughan than it is anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ferri is notable under GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Arguing that his news articles in national press media don't qualify because.... seems to be stretching it. Your interpretation of "significant coverage" differs greatly from WP:N which says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Every single news article in Mario Ferri addresses him and his work directly, either for the complete article, or major parts of it, or inserting paragraphs of material on him and quoting him directly. Most of the articles in the major newspapers were on his community activism and organizing, with 2 or 3 of them on his role as a councillor (besides 25 articles on his work in local/community papers). Nothing in "significant coverage" even mentions news media requiring national or international distribution.
As well, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states: "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits."
As well, under WP:Notability for politicians, the criteria for notability describing non-1st and non-2nd tier government officials is:
2) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7]
3) Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
As well by your definition, these articles should be wiped out of Wikipedia:
Peter W. Heller (born 5 September 1957) ) is a former Deputy Mayor of the City of Freiburg im Breisgau/Germany, environmental scientist, and venture philanthropist... # Dardan Sejdiu is the current deputy Mayor of Pristina and Director in the Department for Economy and Local Development... (Pristina is in Kosovo by the way) # Justin Swandel is a City Councillor[1] and Deputy Mayor in Winnipeg, Manitoba.... # Sekesai Makwavarara is the former deputy mayor and acting mayor of Harare... # Tadeusz Trzmiel (born 1945) is the Polish politician who has been Deputy Mayor of Kraków... # Meron Benvenisti (Hebrew: מירון בנבנשתי‎, born 1934) is an Israeli political scientist who was Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem... # Richard Michael Barnes (born 1 December 1947[1]) is a British former [councillor in the London Borough of Hillingdon ], who was the Deputy Mayor of London from 2008 to 2012, and the Member of the London Assembly for Ealing and Hillingdon from 2000 to 2012.... # Ian Clement (born 1965 in Bexley),[1] was Deputy Mayor of London with responsibility for Government and External Relations... # Robert F. Wagner, Jr. (deputy mayor) (January 6, 1944 – November 15, 1993), also known as Robert (Bobby) Ferdinand Wagner III, was a noted New York City civic leader who served as the Deputy Mayor of the City of New York # David Hay was the Deputy Mayor of Auckland City Council (1991–1998, 2001–2004 and 2007-2010) for the Citizens & Ratepayers ticket... # Phil Davison is a former councilman and Deputy Mayor for the village of Minerva, Ohio... # Svenn Erik Kristiansen (born 30 May 1940) is a Norwegian teacher turned politician. He served as deputy mayor of Oslo... # Ian Duncan McKinnon CNZM QSO JP is a New Zealand educator and local politician, and is a former Deputy Mayor of Wellington... # Grant Haskin (born 1968) is the former Executive Deputy Mayor of Cape Town... # Saul Green is the former Deputy Mayor of Detroit, Michigan...
The above are only a fraction of the deputy mayors on Wikipedia, part of a very lengthy listing. I'm fairly open to accepting people's dediction to public office, and would keep most, if not all of them. Even the deputy mayors of Pristina or Minerva, Ohio. In summation, WP:N doesn't rule out deputy mayors, while Ferri's lengthy record and press as an activist and community organizer give him robust notability under WP:GNG. HarryZilber (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. For what it's worth, I deleted the prior version of this article per the consensus at that AfD, and this one is much improved. Also, the author did attempt to consult with me prior to the recreation of this article, but I'm not that terribly active these days, and didn't respond in a timely manner. My reasoning here is similar to DGG's, I'm just more willing to let the article exist in mainspace while the hoped for improvements take place. This article is crufty, and certainly has the feel of one maintained by editors close to the subject; but currently this is not so egregious that the article must be deleted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC
  • Keep The article is adequately referenced so that it does meet the qualifications of the notability of a politician in that it meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Likewise, the article does provide insight into the turbulent nature of politics in Canada's largest city and environs (the GTA is more than six million in population ranking it among the largest cities in North America), and for that reason, it is acceptable and even, timely, given the nature of Toronto's recent municipal squabbles and the notoriety of its chief magistrate. Although I can see the reasoning of earlier editors and the administrator who deleted the article, it does not seem to be an egregious or blatant attempt at advertising, which would have been a more serious issue to lead to its elimination. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The GTA is not a city; it's a metropolitan area with several cities within it. There is no level of government anywhere below the provincial legislature which is inclusive of both Vaughan and Toronto, and this article offers no insight into anything involving Rob Ford. (If you want that, you're going to need to read stuff pertaining to Toronto City Council — neither Vaughan's nor Toronto's city councils have any authority at all over anything pertaining to the other city.)
In addition, it warrants mention that city councillors are not a class of topic for which some of them garner local media coverage and others don't; all city councillors in any given city garner coverage in local media, and thus all city councillors in any city could technically be said to pass WP:GNG on that basis. However, Wikipedia deprecates exclusively localized coverage, and exclusively localized claims of notability, as evidence that a person actually warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia — we deprecate city councillors not because media coverage of them fails to exist, but because there's rarely any substantive reason why anybody who lives outside of that councillor's own city needs any information about them. Topics that don't have appeal or interest to a broad international readership are extremely vulnerable to BLP or NPOV violations, precisely because there aren't enough eyes on those articles to ensure that they remain compliant with our content policies — which is the key reason why city councillors have been deemed a topic that we normally don't want to maintain articles about. We simply don't have the human resources necessary to keep that many articles about people of exclusively local notability properly monitored and maintained.
If we did accept city councillors as notable, we'd literally have to accept thousands of low visibility — and thus extremely highly vulnerable to policy violation — articles about people who aren't really topics of genuinely encyclopedic interest. GNG wouldn't sort them out, because all city councillors, not just some of them, get covered by the local media (they just usually fail to garner coverage anywhere outside of their own local media market.) So the standard for city councillors has always been evidence that a national or international readership, not a handful of readers living in one single city, could credibly know or need to know about the person. (Joel Burns, for example, didn't get over the bar for being a city councillor — he got over the bar by releasing an online video which made him an international household name whose career started garnering international coverage.) And what I don't see here is any substantive or meaningful reason why Ferri is somehow of more encyclopedic interest than Sandra Yeung Racco or Alan Shefman or Gino Rosati, or any of the other city councillors in Vaughan who still don't qualify for articles because the city is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its city councillors. Nothing here lifts him above the normal level of notability for a city councillor — he hasn't done more than any of the others have, he hasn't garnered more coverage than any of the others did, and he hasn't become any better known outside Vaughan than any of the others are. There's simply nothing here that makes him more relevant in an international encyclopedia than his other colleagues are. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where you wrote that "[Ferri] hasn't garnered more coverage than any of the others did, and he hasn't become any better known outside Vaughan than any of the others are", you keep avoiding the 36 odd articles and the 25 odd photos of him in major newspapers (Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun) that discuss Ferri's work as a community activist and organizer, as well as some other odd articles in those newspapers that discuss his political work. Its apparent to me in your nomination at top and your other posts above and below that you cherry pick your points to try to keep moving the goalposts on what constitutes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As well, since the Vaughan Weekly (paid circ. 52,000 in the early 90's) is on microfilm with Library and Archives Canada, your position that its only a "local community" paper can't be supported, imho.
But aside from Ferri's work as a Regional (not local) Councillor and Deputy Mayor of a medium sized city (which you dismiss out of hand), he is more notable for leading the fight to close Canada's largest waste dump. He was consistently in the national media during the '90s up to 2003 for his work helping to close the Keele Valley Landfill for good reason: had the 20-story high dump continued in operation its leachates would have led to gross contamination of Lake Ontario's drinking water since the landfill is situated on top of an Area of High Aquifer Vulnerability (as imposed by Ontario Government regulation in 2002). Ferri's work closing North America's third largest waste dump was duly noted, with one article stating directly "Ferri made it happen". That's something that Sandra Yeung Racco, Alan Shefman and Gino Rosati , the councillors you refer to above, never did. HarryZilber (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "avoiding" anything or moving any goalposts — I could easily find 36 articles about Sandra Yeung Racco in the exact same newspapers; I could easily find 36 articles about Alan Shefman in the exact same newspapers; and I could easily find 36 articles about Gino Rosati in the exact same newspapers. They all garner comparable levels of coverage to each other, and Ferri has not garnered a special level of coverage beyond any of the others.
I could easily find at least 36 articles about each and every individual city councillor in the entire province of Ontario, in fact — any city councillor who's doing their job at all will turn up in at least 36 articles per year in their local newspaper, let alone over the course of their entire career. So 36 articles is not an impressive or unusual level of coverage for a city councillor; it's par for the course. There is no such thing as a city councillor who doesn't get covered by local media; there are only city councillors who don't get covered outside their local media — and that group includes the vast majority of city councillors in the vast majority of cities, which is the reason why the vast majority of city councillors in the vast majority of cities are not notable for our purposes. And a Vaughan city councillor getting into the Toronto Star (or the National Post and the G&M's local Toronto sections, which are not distributed anywhere outside the GTA) doesn't improve the case, because Vaughan is part of those newspapers' local coverage area — it does not represent "national" coverage the way coverage of a city councillor from Calgary in the same papers would, because they're part of Vaughan's local media landscape. The amount of coverage you've cited simply does not demonstrate that a city councillor in Vaughan has received enough coverage to override a consensus against the notability of city councillors in cities the size of Vaughan and claim "national" significance, because they are not non-local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
News articles on Sandra Yeung Racco, Alan Shefman and Gino Rosati were likely NOT written for community activism and leading demonstrations (such as hundreds in front of the province's Premier's home), or for shutting down a toxic waste dump, the third largest in North America—which is still producing an ever expanding underground plume of carcinogens and other lethal ingredients, as listed on Keele Valley Landfill's article, and are well documented, still spreading and could in the future still threaten Lake Ontario's drinking water, used by dozens of cities in Canada and the U.S.
The article's 25 or so discrete photos of Ferri organizing, leading protests, victory celebrations, etc... reinforce the point that the 36 national media articles listed (and more than a dozen others that weren't added to the article due to being overkill) were news stories of importance receiving widespread distribution.
All of the articles in national media include page numbers (some of the regional/local news articles do not). Of the national media articles currently referenced I can identify only 7 of them that appear to be printed in a local news edition, i.e.: listed as pages "14EAST", "7E", "SC3", "N5", "NY2", "NY3" and "NY2". The remaining news articles from the major print media are distributed as follows:
  • The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation paper, is distributed widely across the entire province (current population ~ 13 million), with its stories being picked up and forwarded to other news chains by the Canadian Press and Associated Press. As well the Toronto Star owns and reruns articles in its Hamilton Spectator, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record (now named the Waterloo Region Record), the Guelph Mercury (all of which are daily papers), plus the Metroland Media Group which publishes over 100 community/local newspapers using six printing plants across the province.
  • The Globe and Mail is Canada's major newspaper of record, formerly with several editions across the country and widely noted by other news redistributors.
  • The Toronto Sun and the National Post both belong to national chains and have their stories redistributed. AS WELL, the Toronto Sun, part of Québecor Média which operates Sun TV, which has long produced video reports for its associated TV network and website, and which reported on the Keel Valley Landfill with Ferri being interviewed for a video news report on site, shown here at top, published along with their article "Toronto's Old Dump Slated for Parkland", in 2011 WHEN HE WAS NOT A POLITICIAN. Their published news on their website is not only viewed nation-wide, but international. HarryZilber (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of references amply support Ferri's work as a community organizer and activist making the article conform to Wikipedia's GNG requirements. Even discounting his 25 "stock" photos in both national media/local papers and the approximate 25 news articles that were published in local/community papers (many on microfilm with Library and Archives Canada) and the articles printed on his work as the Deputy Mayor of a medium sized city, you are still left with the salient fact that news stories on him and his work received widespread distribution and that he qualifies handily under GNG. HarryZilber (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: The local community newspapers the deletion nominator refers to at the very top are not ‘coupon clipper’ papers as might be inferred. They do in fact meet the requirements of "reliable sourcing" at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources by reason that none have a "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing make no mention of "insufficiently wide distribution"; although common sense dictates that a home-printed paper mailed out with a circulation of 300 might scrimp on fact-checking, the circulations of these local newspapers ranged from 23,000 up to 52,000, which is hardly dismissible, with most being paid-circulation papers during the 1990s. Also note that none of them are listed as problem children on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The smallest newspaper referenced (for a single article) appears to be Vaughan Marketplace, which actually had a well written piece. All of the local newspapers reported on their subjects factually with no evidence of bias, and their journalism was substantial the same as for most regional newspapers found in medium-sized cities, with a number of them including the bylines of their writers. All of these newspaper articles were "hard news" pieces, i.e. non-opinion articles. Three of them were published in the Vaughan Citizen, which is a subsidiary of the Toronto Star. Most of these local newspapers are also listed on, and some are available on microfilm, at Library and Archives Canada , a Federal agency headquartered in Ottawa.
Even discounting the 32 articles obtained from local newspapers, the deletion nominator has failed to explain why the 36 articles from reliable source major newspapers (Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun) fail to meet the requirements for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, i.e. why these articles, which included some 25 discrete photos of Ferri, are not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Further, almost all of these articles were reporting on Ferri's community activism and organizing, with perhaps 3 of them related to his work as a politician. How does that not qualify him under WP:GNG? HarryZilber (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC) [Note: several newspaper references have been pruned from the Ferri article, reducing the figures noted in this paragraph HarryZilber (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) ][reply]
I did not say that community weeklies are considered less trustworthy than major dailies. However, because they are less widely-distributed than major dailies, and give much more extensive coverage to people and topics of exclusively local interest, coverage in community weeklies does not constitute proof that a person has attained sufficient notability to warrant an article in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG as an elected politician and community activist. I absolutely despise the stacked footnotes in the piece; these need to be fixed through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Fry[edit]

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

Article has been tagged with questionable notability for about one year. I think it's about time we figure it out. Also, BLP says to remove unsourced material, whether it is positive or negative and most of the article is unsourced. I do not know enough about musician articles/sources to do a good check for notability myself, so hopefully somebody that is better informed on these kinds of articles will chime in. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a founder member of Sky (Billboard, Abbey Road: The Story of the World's Most Famous Recording Studios) and playing percussion during the orchestral bit of "A Day In The Life" from Sgt Pepper ([2]). It's a rare day I see an AfD and think "I've heard of him!" but this is one of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His work in the classical field is significant too, with many broadcasts and recordings in the 1980s. There must be plenty of sources out there if anyone cares to search for them, but they may not be available online. --Deskford (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sky (band). I understand he's done a truckload of session work, but I don't see that as particularly notable in the sense of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. He is of sufficient personal notability in the music field for there to be an article on him. Afterwriting (talk) 17:25, 29 June 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, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Farnham, Essex#Farnham Primary School. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farnham Church of England Primary School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Charles (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why is this school deemed not notable when others are included in Wikipedia? Either all primary schools in Essex are permissible on Wikipedia or none are. Links have been made to secondary sources to affirm notability, which is more than most schools featured on Wikipedia.--Deltaniger (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind merging it, but it seems to be a policy that is unevenly applied when there are some primary schools banned from Wikipedia and some that are accepted, even with no proven "notability".--Deltaniger (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Davey said. Deltaniger -- it may well just be that other such schools are awaiting their own AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Epeefleche - Most primary schools you think are notable probably won't be here by next week. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This background may help clarify the matter ... it may be illuminating to look at some of the past primary school AfDs here (focusing on the ones from recent years). Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the schools/education sections. The Farnham article needs severe expansion. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens next, now that people who have no apparent link with the area think what I wrote should be deleted?--81.155.18.216 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Deltaniger (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that editors participating here have an "apparent link with the area." In fact, it can cut the other way, if the link with the topic is one that presents a conflict of interest. If the article is redirected, then appropriate content can be created by you or others at the target article. Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (not just redirect) with Farnham, Essex. The school has had a high-profile local news campaign recently to have it closed with pupils moving to Stansted, well documented in The Herts-Essex Observer. However, that in itself is not really enough to have a standalone article. For an example of a primary school of similar age that we would keep, see Ashdown House, East Sussex who has a very well known former pupil. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look very notable to me. Famous alumni do not make a school notable. Little else in Ashdown House. Atlas-maker (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So nominate it for deletion and see who agrees with you! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a case of voting, rather than determining policy, then it would be easy to pack this with parents voting. A curious way to run an encyclopaedia! I'm happy with whatever is policy as I don't own Wikipedia I only occasionally edit the significant amount of information that appears wrong on subjects I know about. This is the first time I have registered an account and it's a mystery to me. If people vote or it is policy to discard this article, then I am happy with putting the information in the article for the village. However, I would ask for it to be retained somewhere so that it is not all lost and I don't have to waste time. Thanks.--Deltaniger (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. The object is to achieve consensus through discussion based based on policy and guidelines. Packing this discussion with meat puppets would not make any difference.--Charles (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Deltaniger: Apropos your comment on losing material, you can request userfication of the article but please read this guideline regarding the reuse of deleted material.  Philg88 ♦talk 03:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. This 28-student school of children ages 4-11 is NN, per the above discussion. Merge is not appropriate -- because it is not appropriate to merge material that is both uncited and challenged (as here). But if redirect is the result, editors can create appropriate material at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What material in the article is not cited or challenged? There are links to sources. You may not find it interesting, but the school is notable in the community in which it is situated - indeed, apart from the church it is the last remaining institution in a rural community - and there was a lot of press and radio coverage over the proposal to move it to another community. This is all sourced. But if you have a problem with content, this should be discussed within the article rather than a reason to delete it.--Deltaniger (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article IMHO is NN, per our notability standards, and the comments of the others suggesting that it is not notable are in accord with mine, and I've pointed you to other similar AfDs and Outcomes w/regard to how we address such schools typically, all of which accords with the conclusion that there should not be a stand-alone article for this 28-student school of children ages 4-11. Again, if there were appropriate mention of the school at a target article, as some have suggested, to which this school were redirected, I would not have a problem with that. Please spend some time reading the diffs Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the past primary school AfDs here (focusing on the ones from recent years) to understand why most editors who have !voted on this page who are seasoned editors have not !voted to keep this as a standalone article. Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you say about your notability standards, although I don't understand much of your jargon. But what is your objection about having this content in the Farnham page? You said "it is not appropriate to merge material that is both uncited and challenged" and although no-one has said the material itself is not cited or challenged, you appear to want all mention of this school removed even from the article on the community itself. Or perhaps I misunderstood you.--Deltaniger (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to provide links to any jargon that is unfamiliar or explain it. Much you can glean by double-clicking the blue links in what I wrote, and what others wrote. I'm fine with the article being redirected to the Farnham page (an alternative to only deleting it, without a redirect). If that happens, you can create any appropriate material at that page (I would suggest using RS refs to support text, if any). You and other editors can discuss at that page what is appropriate, if that is an issue. As I read the comments at this point in time, though the closer of this AfD may have a different view, the consensus is not to keep this as a stand-alone article. But there are five editors who view a redirect as either the appropriate outcome, or an appropriate outcome, which seems to reasonable be a consensus view. Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is, as I understand it, unanimity. There is not a consensus, but a majority opinion since I dissent from the rest. What are "RS refs" and "diffs"? What is the difference between "merge" and "redirect and adding appropriate material"?--Deltaniger (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean unanimity, at least on Wikipedia. It is more an informed majority view, giving little weight to those who do not back up their vote with evidence based on policy, i.e. those who want to keep a page because it reflects their particular interests.Charles (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Deltaniger - I've provided some links to the phrases you don't understand, on your talkpage. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't understand the arcane rules, I guess it's best I stay out of this conversation.--Deltaniger (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Significant means wider coverage than arguments over closure in the local paper. That can be included in the settlement article.Charles (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew -- your !vote is along the lines of your previous recent !votes at school AfDs. I hope you are taking note how non-consensus your view is in this area, as borne out by the paucity of closes in accord with your !votes. Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta Blues[edit]

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

Seems like unnotable band. There just two sources, one of them YouTube, the other just mentions the band in passing, no significant coverage. Google news has no hits [3]. Google Books has some hits, but it seams that most of them are about some unrelated band from the 60s [4]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existing RS coverage provided or that I could find is too faint to demonstrate notability. Band is very young, so could demonstrate notability in future. If anyone can find better sourcing (RS, and not trivial mentions), am happy to look again. Note to others searching: beware false positives to Dave Brubeck song of the same name, which has been covered by Clapton and others. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Hobbes Goodyear. Also promotional. Little independent coverage.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball (fashion brand)[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:CORP and WP:N. Four of the refs in the article are press releases, one is a retail link, and the last one provides trivial coverage (and may be another press release). Note also that this article was created shortly after the most recent AfC was declined at Draft:Crystal Ball(fashion brand). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Google translations of the refs:
All of the sources are self-published and/or trivial mentions. No indication of significant coverage by third party reliable sources, and no claim of notability in the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :per points raised by nominator. I suspect this must have just passed through Speedy Deletion. Almost seems like an advert. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the page history, I saw a speedy was submitted on June 26, so I bypassed the prod and went straight to AfD. My guess is that it could start snowing on this page and get an early close, as it does appear to be an advert to me as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for being entirely promotional. Bensci54 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the overly promotional nature of the article, basic notability does not appear to have been established given the absence of in-depth third-party coverage. --DAJF (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race[edit]

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

Appears to be too soon for an article at this time, as the only information made available so far about this subject comes from this press release and this FreshTV blog entry —both primary sources. The article also cites various LinkedIn profiles, which do not contribute strongly to notability. The press release only makes a rather small mention of the subject, and does not provide much more encyclopedic information. Ultimately, the bottom line is that as of now there are no reliable sources that discuss this subject, and by policy: no reliable third-party sources = no notability. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Go ahead and delete it since it seems that this is not Season 6, and instead a brand new TV series which is too early in the production stages and might not air until a few years down the road. Besides, How to Train Your Dragon 3 has more reliable sources than this, and even that doesn't have its own article yet. So yeah... DELETE Giggett (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the best you've got for 'sources' is snooping LinkedIn pages, that's just sad. Too soon is being kind about this, and there's such a thing as 'rewrites' that might kill this concept before it ever escapes the writer's room. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft or delete - It might be too early, but this article will be needed. Move it to a draft space. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't needed with sourcing that depends on LinkedIn stalking and a directory of possible animation projects, which includes an Inspector Gadget reboot that's been "in development" for three years. As usual, let's wait for the network to say it's a go, because come when it's 'needed' the LinkedIn and ACTRA sources will be rightfully laughed off the page. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case it does get deleted EvergreenFir, we won't need a draft since you can always see the article here in case we need to add in back once it is confirmed by press releases. Giggett (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giggett Could always just stick it in your sandbox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, you been given many valid reasons for why this article should be deleted, so I think it's time to just change your vote and end this discussion once in for all. Might as well get this over with and get it deleted before the 4th of July holiday weekend starts and several IP users start adding false content to the page. Giggett (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with deletion if you, as the main contributor to the page, are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I created the page, and the only reason why I made the article this early is cus this season was completely fake, and yet it got its own article for weeks and nobody noticed, so I thought that why can't TRR get one also? Guess, it's gonna get deleted too even though this season is real. Giggett (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in question for me is neither the existence of the subject nor the quality of the article; it is the notability of the subject. Notability generally depends on the availability of third-party reliable sources about the subject. Although I am pretty sure this subject will become notable in the future, right now it is just too soon, and this coverage from reliable sources doesn't exist yet. When the time comes and more information about the subject becomes known, I would be more than happy to support recreating the article. Sadly, Wikipedia does see some fake subjects every now and then that do lurk for a few weeks before they are discovered. If an article itself is a hoax, it should be deleted immediately per WP:CSD#G3, but it's a matter of how long it takes for someone to notice the error and take action to correct it. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Kunda Junior[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkeyz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has more than one sources and I have just added to the source of new references. User:Cfc92t (talk) 12:13, 02 July 2014 (UTC) — Cfc92t (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the sources do indicate the player played in a fully-professional league. Otrofiltalk 13:47, 04 July 2014 (UTC) — Otrofil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - lots of sources and references. Meets WP:GNG. Easy to find other sources such as [5]. Odd, this all sounds familiar, but I can't find any reference to us discussing this at AFD before. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. First three keep votes are not relevant, sources that confirm the existence of the player do not necessarily establish notability. User:Cfc92t does not indicate how the sources added satisfy either GNG or NFOOTY. Otrofil's comment is just wrong, the player has not satisfied NFOOTY as he has not played in an FPL. Nfitz's additional source here is not only merely WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation, but also from a source of questionable reliability. Player may well be notable in the future but is just an up and coming prospect at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Red[edit]

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

Pure speculation. No references. No mention of a Red line in York Region Transit, Rapid Transit Network Plans. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any idea where user "Hum1696" got the story of Viva Red? I personally have never heard of this idea, nor is there any notice on any transit website or idea on any transit enthusiasts websites. Alexhead8835 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savn[edit]

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

New band, new album, not notable. Noming both individually. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Dmol (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep because the article is linked in some other important articles and Carmen Elise Espenæs is a well-known singer. HÊÚL. (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not about Carmen Elise Espenæs. Notability is not inherited. As for the linked articles, they all seem to inter-link. Again, this does not confer notability. --Dmol (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Usually when a band has members from other bands that have articles here then a merge is worth considering, but here the other bands (from the sources in those articles at least) are not convincingly notable. Both The Sins of They Beloved and Midnattsol, with two and three albums on Napalm Records respectively, might squeak in, so maybe a merge to the former would be appropriate given that two members are from that band. Finding sources for bands in this genre can be difficult as print coverage that exists can often not be found on the web, but in the case of Savn, the existing coverage appears to be pretty well documented on their website (here) and there doesn't look to be much from reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSICBIO#C6.--Launchballer 13:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – This AfD was somehow missed from any of the daily logs, so I have added it to today's log. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep because the article is linked in some other important articles and Carmen Elise Espenæs is a well-known singer. Also Liv Kristine. --Apega71 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jac16888 Talk 15:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JazbaWelfare[edit]

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

No indication of notability to satisfy WP:ORG. The organization's homepage appears to be a Webs.com free-hosted website. Sources included in the article are to the organization's homepage and Facebook. I was unable to find any reliable sources in English. Personally, I feel that the article probably satisfies WP:CSD#A7. But to avoid systemic bias, it may be better to discuss. The creator of the article may have a conflict of interest for the subject. Mz7 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 25 June 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamanlal Kamani[edit]

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

person is not really worthy of a story on this wiki. A Internet search returns little - connected take down chat - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deepak_Kamani Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A (fairly important ?) businessman in Kenya ? I say keep - Africa gets short shrift on Wikipedia (and google ..) Wizzy…☎ 09:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with you but "getting short shrift" is not a wikia guideline to promote stories - On the Africa wikia you will probably find much more,. however on the English wikia there is after searching, almost no notability here - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'On the Africa wikia' - there is such a thing ? We (myself South Africa) and Kenya mainly use the en wikipedia. There is a swahili wikipedia, but the language of business and government in Kenya is English. To return to topic, it could be construed as an attack page, but the subject is notable. Wizzy…☎ 07:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they meant the Afrikaans Wikipedia, but why that would cover Kenyans more than other wikipedias, I am not sure. Other possible languages that might have wikipedias, like Akan, would also not apply here. I am not sure about the merit of the article, but do have to say that we must remember the goal of wikipedia is not to right great wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were probably referring to Wikia, a completely different project from Wikipedia that has no affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation. The website allows users to build user-created wikis about anything, including Africa. Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awake (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

De-PRODed article. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the article was reviewed by Cross Rhythms, as is cited in the article.--¿3family6 contribs 22:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 contribs 15:35, 25 June 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This album in no way meets the WP:NALBUMS requirements. Billboard nor Cashbox have record of this title. Even though a few mention of it exist, I do not feel it meets the criteria to remain viable on Wikipedia.--Canyouhearmenow 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

De-PRODed article. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Reviewed by Cross Rhythms, as is cited in the article. There might be more sources, it's difficult to tell because "one" is such a common word that it screws up the Google search.--¿3family6 contribs 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present, no pun intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite. Again, it's difficult to determine for sure because of the album title being a commonly used word.--¿3family6 contribs 15:31, 25 June 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable album with no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Darrell Schweitzer Megapack[edit]

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

self-published collection of short stories that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The collection is not self-published (Wildside Press is a reputable publisher specializing in but not limited to science fiction, fantasy and horror). The author is a notable figure in the speculative fiction field who has won and been nominated for major awards. Truth in advertising: I do have something of an ax to grind here, since I created the article. Just so you know. BPK (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How does this book meet WP:NBOOK? AFAICT, it doesn't. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an ISBN for this title; this is why I maintain it is self-published. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't looked very hard, or perhaps not since you nominated the article for deletion. I found the ISBN quite easily, and added it to the article on 17 June 2014. BPK (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it's got an ISBN. Notability still isn't established. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 21:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darrell Schweitzer#Other short story collections. I cannot find evidence for notability to justify a stand-alone article. The two references in the article only establish that the collection exists. I can find no significant coverage about this collection of short stories. I see no substantive book reviews or critical commentary. I do see lots of links to sales sites. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 26 June 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Armenian Americans in Los Angeles[edit]

History of the Armenian Americans in Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is poorly written, has only a few references and is simply redundant and should be deleted and its content be moved and integrated into Armenian_American#California.

Los Angeles is home to many other ethnic communities and none of them have separate articles about their history in the city. I don't see why Armenians should be an exception. A number of ethnic groups in the US have large communities is many cities should we create articles on each one? Երևանցի talk 17:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are eight other articles for ethnic groups in Los Angeles. There are similar articles written for ethnic groups in New York City, Chicago, Baltimore, Omaha, and many other cities. This article is no exception. While the article has not been fully fleshed out, I don't see why it cannot be added to and improved. Solar-Wind (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I've added some additional LA times sources. With attribution I will now add some content that does exist at Armenian Americans (A note will be added at the end of the page, marking the revision) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer quantity over quality then let it be. Just a little suggestion from me to you (which you can ignore), creating articles for the sake of creating articles is not what makes Wikipedia better. --Երևանցի talk 02:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ignore suggestions. I respond to them and address them. Let's take a look:
  • 1. It is absolutely possible to have a quality article on this topic. You can make a quality article with enough sources: two academic studies and numerous Los Angeles Times and other newspaper articles.
  • 2. The mistaken belief that "this-and-this topic is not worthy of Wikipedia" has caused many Wikipedians to get frustrated and quit. I don't want to see that happen, and for their sake I establish articles like this and fight for their survival. I will be dead someday, and I want people to succeed me as editors, so I want to encourage as many potential Wikipedians to join as I can, and I do it by starting articles on new subjects so people know there is still work to do.
  • 3. The public wants Wikipedia to be a vast, comprehensive resource and Wikipedia's raison d'etre, no, it's selling point is that it can be more vast and cover more things than a traditional encyclopedia.
  • 4. Local information encouraged people to join Wikipedia. People care about their communities and their local lifestyles and culture. For that reason, I establish articles like this to encourage people to join.
It is important to also bolster existing articles and add quality; that can be done after articles are established. But this can be done without preventing people from starting articles on new topics. And in order to convince people to add to the quality of existing articles, you must let them write about what they want so they can be established on Wikipedia; that often means a brand new article on a new subject. In other words: if you want quality you must bring in quantities of topics to encourage people to join and contribute. Thank you.
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible to create articles on almost every item on Earth. The way you're copy-pasting info into this article is unbelievable, considering that you're an admin and you've been here for 10 years. No wonder why most articles are low quality. Good luck to you in making quality articles. --Երևանցի talk 20:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. What do you mean by "The way you're copy-pasting info into this article is unbelievable"? Explain?
  • I did import this block of text from Armenian American and this was attributed in the "Notes" section
  • I posted a mention of the genocide memorial, but this did not use the same text as in Armenian American - it just says it exists. This article was actually written independently of Armenian American. If you wish I can try to find a way to automatically compare the texts of both articles and show you this.
2. "It is also possible to create articles on almost every item on Earth." - In the cases of all of the article ideas that are possible, this is a good thing. You want to do this. You want to encourage this.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:. Kindly see this book chapter:
  • Der-Martirosian, Claudia, Georges Sabagh, and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. "Subethnicity: Armenians in Los Angeles" (Chapter 11). In: Light, Ivan Huberta and Parminder Bhachu (editors). Immigration and Entrepreneurship: Culture, Capital, and Ethnic Networks. Transaction Publishers, year unstated. Start page: 243. ISBN 1412825938, 9781412825931.
I think this solves the question on whether this topic is notable for its own article. Don't you think so?
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caffie Jeanette Risher[edit]

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

All material in this bio aside from the claim "teaches at a community college" uses primary sources. Suspect author has a COI based on their username and the fairly promotional tone of the piece. Unsure as to notability given the mention of an upcoming textbook and involvement with shortwave radio station, so thought I'd run this article past the community for input. Dolescum (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources or accomplishments that merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources for this apparent autobiography which appears to have been partially cribbed from here. The sourcing in the article is atrocious to say the least (skype? linkedin?) -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Google search of exact name generates just 20 Google hits. Dropping the middle name returns more, but I'm not seeing anything at all counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Château-Gaillard (Vannes)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability. NickGibson3900 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. France doesn't grant Historic Monument status lightly. All are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs expansion, not deletion. Notability is given by MH status. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a monument historique. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve/expand. StarM 03:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable but the article needs work, as it is barely a stub... --Jersey92 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article may be short and lacks info but definitely a historic structure/building. ///EuroCarGT 03:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bat-Kohen. Merging of any material is at editorial discretion. Deor (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of Aaron[edit]

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

A request for sources has been there since 2007 and the page has not been improved since Marcocapelle (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bat-Kohen. The term is used to describe female Aaronites and the term Bat-Kohen is used to describe the daughters of Kohens/Aaronites. Since the term Aaronite was used to describe the priestly tribe in general (Kohen), this would be a reasonable redirect to Bat-Kohen. However we would have to have a specific section to show how the term "daughter of Aaron" is used in the New Testament, as the usage is somewhat slightly different. This is probably because the Gospel of Luke (one area where the term was used) is believed to have been written by a Gentile or a Hellenized Jew writing to Gentiles in general, as you don't see a lot of specifically Jewish terms used in the book. (That's grossly oversimplifying things.) Bat-Kohens are considered to be daughters of Aaron, but not all DoA are specifically daughters of priests, so we'd need to be able to clarify this somewhat. Long story short, we can merge this into the main article for Bat-Kohen since that'd be most appropriate, but it'd be a good idea to create a sub section as to how the term is used in the New Testament. I'll try to find more, but if anyone can find enough sources to merit its own article, it'd probably be easier to have the pages separate and then make a mention on both pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tokyogirl79, there is no reason for the merge, each article can work in its own religious sphere, with that end in mind I have placed WP:HATNOTES at the top of each article explaining [6] [7] how each notion works in the two different religions of Judaism and Christianity. It is usually not a good idea to run to mix Christian New Testament notions into Judaism-related articles, and vice versa, otherwise every article about Christianity becomes mixed up with Judaism that could become a cross-referencing nightmare that in the end looks like one huge violation of WP:NOR. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (but do not merge) to Bat-Kohen: per Tokyogirl, though I disagree for merging. After Tokyogirl's cleanup, there really is nothing left to merge; the use of "daughter of Aaron" (or, more correctly, and as it actually appears in the sources: "of the daughters of Aaron") in the New Testament is not remarkable; it is the female version of one of the standard Biblical names for a Kohen: "of the sons of Aaron"—unless someone can show that, in Christian sources, there is some special significance in this epithet being given for John the Baptist's mother. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bat-Kohen There may be some content worth merging, but there seems little difference between the purpose of the two articles and the merge into Bat-Kohen will provide greater context. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Oppose merge or redirect Bat-Kohen is a old-testament term, while Daughter of Aharon is a new-testament term. These two should not be merged. This is more fit for WikiDictionary, but as an article should simply be deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Christian theology it is a valid {{Christianity-stub}} and it cites two excellent WP:V WP:RS. There is definitely room for growth and no need to disregard it because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is advocating it being deleted because they don't like it. On my end it's just that there aren't a whole lot of sources to show any in-depth coverage of the term apart from how the term "Aaronite" is used. Its usage in the NT is somewhat different and we'd need to have more than just the two current sources to really show a depth of coverage of the term. Most of what I found was along the lines of the typical worship website that we can't use as a RS- a common problem with terminology of any religion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tokyogirl79, so let me understand what you are saying, that since this stub lacks more information at this time (even though it does have good enough refs), you think it should be dumped into an article that is part of another religion and is used quite differently in that religion? What kind of "solution" is that? Why pick on this term that is after all used in Christianity, and why the rush after it's been around so long to shove it into an article relating to Judaism, isn't that intellectually dishonest, unencyclopedic, and a cop-out as well as veering into violating WP:NOR? IZAK (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, what do you mean by "keep as part of Christian theology"? You mean to merge it into that article? Debresser (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly it's just that I couldn't find a depth of coverage. I had to look pretty hard to find both of those sources and they're not exactly the most solid I could find. This source has it listed under Aaronites and this one is a fairly brief mention. Neither are very in-depth and could be considered as trivial in scope. We need more coverage in reliable sources before I could really say that this should be kept separate. If you can find it then I'd have no problem with keeping the article and having a hatnote at the top. It's just that we need to find at least something that focuses on the term specifically. It's not us picking on the term, just that we don't have a lot of coverage for it in places we could say was reliable. It's a shame and maybe due to the fact that so many scholars have been focused on a patriarchal perspective of Christianity for the longest time, but we can't help that at this point in time. Hopefully someone will make more RS about the term and/or hopefully there are RS out there that just haven't hit the Internet. Until we have those sources, there's not a whole lot we can do. And like Marcocapelle said, we do have articles that encompass terminology and topics that encompass multiple religions, especially since Christianity came out of Judaism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP, or if needed, merge, to Bat-Kohen. I don't see how there is much diffeence, and we have a better article that is properly sourced already existing apart from this fork. I am somewhat familiar with Christian theology, and other than one passing reference in the Gospels, and another in the Protoevangelium of James, I don't see how any of this is relevant or material to anything else. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep -- This is no more than a dictionary definition. No objection to redirect; it certainly should not have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very little here argues that the topic is non-notable. No prejudice against further discussions surrounding the best way to arrange the content, perhaps via partial merge. j⚛e deckertalk 02:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Maria Panganiban Monument[edit]

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

This has questionable notability and seems of topic (parts of the article is about the person not the statue). Could possibly be split into two articles, one about the monument and one about the person. NickGibson3900 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Monument being considered as a National Historical Landmark having been built in the early 1900s is without a doubt notable. I would suggest removing the biography section of the figure being honored as this is already found in the article on Jose Maria Panganiban.--RioHondo (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-local[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable neologism. The single citation in the article does not list a page number. No other reliable sources could be located. Fails WP:NEO. - MrX 17:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism, can't find any relevant Ghits. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andersson Jamal[edit]

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

Player has never played a professional game. Only one reliable source mentions him Gelderlander and it shows that he is yet to start playing. Other sources (Transfermarkt.co.uk) are unreliable. All articles are in Dutch and Dutch Wikipedia has already deleted their article on him (see nl.wikipedia.org). Agora wrote in the article's talk page why they deleted it from their wikipedia. Pjposullivan (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'll quote myself from the article's talk page: "There are still no reliable sources (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) for almost his complete career. The only reliable step is that he signed for next season at Achilles '29 [8] and his intentions to play at amateurside ADO'20 the year before. The transfermarkt profile is user generated and not a reliable source to use as a single source. The other sources follow that profile and maybe also Wikipedia. Elsewhere there's nothing to find about his career which is very odd because he is mentioned in the article at some big clubs (Twente, Ajax, Juventus, Napoli?). Fans of Padova don't know him [9] and he is not mentioned in last years Olimpic Donetsk squad [10]. He did played at the Brentford FC reserves early 2012 [11] as Shacar Jamal (Andersson Shacar "Shak" Jamal was speedy deleted in 2012)." Agora (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Jamal has been released by Achilles because the club has serious doubts about his past. [12] Agora (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations. j⚛e deckertalk 02:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Saint Kitts and Nevis, London[edit]

High Commission of Saint Kitts and Nevis, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. there is also no bilateral article to redirect to either. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No one is writing about it, nor should we. The only references that I found were trivial mentions and very closely connected sources such as commission's (excuse me—high commission's) own website.- MrX 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Star, X? St★lwart111 12:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support such a redirect.- MrX 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Doll[edit]

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

This musical does not appear to have acquired enough attention to have crossed the notability threshold. It appears to have won an award for Best Musical from the National Youth Theater group, but that group itself does not appear to be notable (it is a high school-oriented organization that gives out awards to high school-related productions of theater). It was only ever performed at a single theater in North Carolina for one season and not again afterwards. The other award was only a nomination, and from another group without notability of its own (I could not even determine who awards it, though it might be a local radio station), and nominations are not usually considered enough to qualify a subject for notability even for national awards by notable groups (unless there are lots of them). What I see, then, is a single production of a high school musical by a group in North Carolina-- a production that did not receive any wider attention by the media during or since it first took place, and for which there does not appear to have been any significant coverage. For this reason I propose it be deleted as having failed to meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. KDS4444Talk 02:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that although the play's author, Joan Cushing, appears to have a blue link in the article and is therefore herself a notable person in her own right, the link simply goes to the article on "playwright", not an article on Ms. Cushing (who does not actually appear to be a notable person). This makes me deeply suspicious of the article's authorship: the person who wrote the piece clearly knew how to use blue links and clearly used this one to disguise the lack of notability of the playwright, all of which adds to this article's notability fail. KDS4444Talk 02:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, the article's original author, Sprintsketch, is a single purpose account used for nothing other than the creation of this article, and by someone who was him- or herself an experienced editor. To me, this strongly suggests that someone was paid to write the piece, not because the subject of the article was at all notable. KDS4444Talk 02:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lol, well that's peculiar. I agree, the article acts like this is a broadway show or something when it's clearly not. The book itself may have an argument for notability, but this play? No. Bali88 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: This musical, by a non-notable creator, was given a short run at a local theatre, followed by some amateur productions. Not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:37, 23 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very few sources are available at all, and none convincing enough to pass WP:GNG.- MrX 17:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian American Museum St. Sava[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The only source given in the article is a self-published (by the writer, not by the museum) book from 1984. Looking for other sources, I can't find any reliable sources giving any significant attention to this museum, only some routine listings of events at the museum, and mentions from less reliable sources (fora, blogs, personal websites, ...) Fram (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The Serbian American Museum St. Sava is a notable organization. The Serbian American Museum St. Sava is recognized as an ethnic community organization by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs [1], http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Global_Chicago/Ethnic_Community_Organizations/files/Global_Chicago/Ethnic_Community_Organizations.aspx?hkey=050c9204-e774-4be0-a0a4-f7f1ea542028

and as a community cultural organization by the Chicago Cultural Alliance. [2] http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/november-2011/community-cultural-organizations-collaborate-through-the-chicago-cultural-alliance

  1. ^ http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Global_Chicago/Ethnic_Community_Organizations/files/Global_Chicago/Ethnic_Community_Organizations.aspx?hkey=050c9204-e774-4be0-a0a4-f7f1ea542028
  2. ^ http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/november-2011/community-cultural-organizations-collaborate-through-the-chicago-cultural-alliance

I added these two references to the article. Carriearchdale (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the city council has added an organisation in the city to a list of some 100 other organisations[13], or was a member of a group mentioned in an article where it doesn't even warrant a mention in the introduction, unlike many other organisations in the list[14] (a group, by the way, of which it no longer even is a member apparently[15], are hardly elements to claim that an article meets WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The museum was founded in 1952. A 60+ year old museum is notable, though this could probably use more sources (has anyone checked the local Serbian language press?)--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, it has only become a museum a few years ago, before that it was a club / meeting place / cultural centrum. So it is not a 60+ year old museum (which in itself is not a claim to notability either). Fram (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because I researched it a bit more, we now know that they changed the name to "museum" fairly recently (though it's unclear if this means they started exhibitions at that time or earlier). However, even without the museum aspect, it still appears that they have been a major cultural force in the international Serbian diaspora for 60 years - their newspaper is widely cited, and clearly more research is needed. Apparently they have/had chapters of the organization as far away as Australia, and this international political aspect is somewhat parallel to the Serbian National Defense Council (though this group appears to be more moderate politically).--Pharos (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking into this even more, it appears we should probably have a separate article on the Serbian Cultural Club, which seems to have been founded in Serbia just before WWII, had a major political role there, relocated to Chicago as a diaspora base after the war (with branches worldwide), and whose Chicago mother chapter has now evolved more or less into a nonpolitical museum.--Pharos (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "The organization also hosts the Serbian American Chamber of Commerce, established 1987." What kind of a museum is this? Leave aside notability I doubt it can be considered a real museum. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether this is to be kept or not, I am not sure. However, we need to clarify that this a primarily a cultural center, not a museum, in the sense I think most of our readers would think. It could be notable - the Chicago area has a large Southern Slav population, as well as many fine museums and cultural centers of international repute. But so far, I have not read much to convince me either way. A reference to a local consortium of cultural centers does not give me a lot of respect for this institution. An organization needs to show that it has been covered by multiple sources of independent media, or have won recognition from national or state agencies, such as landmark status, to be notable. Userfication would be appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be best to move it to Serbian Cultural Club St. Sava, as this was apparently for many years a worldwide diaspora movement based in Chicago, and would be the primary source of notability. And then perhaps have the actual "museum" part as a subsection of this, as the latest evolution of what was once a more major organization.--Pharos (talk) 19:40, 26 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The organization has simply not been discussed in depth by a sufficient number of independent sources. Age does not confer notability, otherwise I would write articles about some of the rocks in my back yard. I also agree with WsIhaUN? Renaming it will not make it notable. - MrX 17:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until this is a notable enough museum to get mentioned in respectable travel guides.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weather Star. Think of this as the redirect equivalent of a WP:SOFTDELETE. (Sadly, SOFTREDIRECT is something else entirely.) j⚛e deckertalk 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star III[edit]

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

Did not find significant independent reliable source coverage of topic to establish notability. Sources I did find:

Agyle (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Weather Star, any verifiable information can be, and I believe has been, added to that article. --Bejnar (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:45, 23 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Khan[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO and tone of the article is entirely promotional. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's sources are very weak and I am unable to find any to support notability. There may be non-English sources, but since the article creator has not cited them per WP:BURDEN, I assume that the subject is simple not notable.- MrX 17:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable and sure self-promotion Drsharan (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Without prejudice to renomination after appropriate cleanup or stubbing with a large axe. j⚛e deckertalk 02:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birsa Institute of Technology Sindri[edit]

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

To be clear, this is a "should we delete" nom, not a "we should delete" nom. I am !voting neutral.

I think this article may be suitable for deletion because it has a major conflict of interest beyond anything I'd like to fix, and treats WP as an advertising platform. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AfD is not for cleanup. I would suggest you delete all uncited material (after tagging for the malady and providing an opportunity for others to fix it, if in your judgment that step is appropriate to take first). And then see what is left. And then see if an AfD is appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrible article, but as a degree-awarding college it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely it is notable; need clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsharan (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Davidson (speaker)[edit]

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

I see no notability. No third-party references support the statements in the article, and without such discussion of the subject in independent publications there can be no notability. A Google search unearthed nothing but commercial hits and various blogs. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: he's certainly published a lot of books and I've seen authors listed with a lot less.. however in those cases they have also been notable in some other way. Outside of the list of books, I can establish no notability. However, there are couple of points worth mentioning about this article. It appears to have been created by someone closely related to the subject (a COI), and there was extensive use of sockpuppets (all now banned). I believe the article was created as a promotional piece, but of course that does not necessarily mean the the subject is non-notable. Shritwod (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author has published a lot of books, but the top 4 in terms of reported end-user holdings (i.e. popularity) are:
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to Managing Your Time
  • The Joy of Simple Living: Over 1,500 Simple Ways to Make Your Life Easy and Content-- At Home and At Work
  • The Complete Idiot's Guide to Managing Stress
  • Simpler Living: A Back to Basics Guide to Cleaning, Furnishing, Storing, Decluttering, Streamlining, Organizing, and More
I focused on finding reviews for these but not much luck. -- GreenC 02:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 14:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regarding the hubris of calling his one man consultancy an "institute"[16] and saying he is honored to be "the only person on Earth with this distinction" of registering "The Work-life Balance Expert®" as its trademark[17], I can only say that the conspicuous vanity of the article's subject does not necessarily mean the article is a pure vanity piece.

    Regarding his plethora of publications,[18] the chronology shows an evolution from writing advice about marketing to taking his own advice by marketing motivational materials. I would only remark that the chief skill and accomplishment of some motivationalists lies in motivating clients to purchase course materials; but this does not necessarily mean the article is purely promotional.

    That said, the article certainly looks like a purely promotional vanity piece, and I am unable to locate any reliably independent substative sources on Google that indicate he, his business, or his books and materials are notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Aside from not being able to find anybody taking notice of him, the fact that he offers his ghostwriting skills on his own site tells me he isn't making it as an author. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (Wikipedia is not a webhost and this page is not even an article). Much of the information is outright puffery; for example, the subject wrote a single article for The Practical Lawyer - to call him a columnist is akin to naming somebody as an op-ed journalist because they had one letter to the editor published once in the Daily News. The one really significant thing he's written is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Managing Your Time, which I shall grant you, is pretty good. However, any monkey could print out 65 books and 3000 articles, but that would not prove notability. I'd go along with userfication. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jagga Jasoos[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The movie is filming per several high-quality sources, including this, this and this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has been spoken widely around the world by press and productions teams. Daan0001 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has sources, the article just needs to be worked on. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - This is nothing but 100% CRYSTAL, Had it been filmed/released in July or August I would'nt mind but "May 2015" is a joke. Sources or no sources from now till May '15 it's just going to be speculation after speculation. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON Chander For You 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Aghayev[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - not even close to meeting WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Boxrec shows a total of 2 professional fights--1 win and 1 draw. Does not meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Waterford#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waterpark National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Architect's Essence[edit]

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

Non notable book (WP:NBOOK). Google search returns some hits, most of the Facebook pages [19]. No reliable sources of any kind. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced, too. This kind of stuff belongs on a wikia, not here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the author's twitter page, it doesn't seem that this series has even been published yet. I'll warn the editor in question about COI editing, as it appears that he's also the author himself. There's just nothing out there to show that this book is notable enough to merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he is the author if the book, and the book has not yet been published. He admitted that at my talk page [20]. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine crusader[edit]

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

This is some kind of fictional character without Notability (WP:GNG). Google search returns some hits [21], but all are images, no coverage of any kind. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and likely a hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsourced, likely hoax B14709 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2,4-D manufacturers[edit]

List of 2,4-D manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This form of standalone lists does not contain any encyclopedic information. As the opening statement is referenced, that sole sentence could be incorporated in 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (without listing all the companies). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article is supported by one source. That source itself says that it lists "pesticide products that contain 2,4-D, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Diuron, Malathion, Triclopyr BEE or Trifluralin" which are all different chemicals and the document doesn't say which chemical is in which product. Additionally, the "company" column is not "manufacturers" but rather is "Company/distributor name". So the source doesn't support the content. Finally, the EPA website doesn't make clear when this document was generated. If you click the "info" button on the EPA page (menu bar, blue "i" all the way to the right) you see that the EPA doesn't list a publication year. Couple things there make it look like it may be from 2000 but that info page also says it part of some pre-1976 index so it could be much older. And I agree with the OP that no "who cares" if provided so it fails Notability.Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—The fact that a list exists within a government regulatory body is not sufficient for notability. The article misrepresents both the companies (who are distributors and/or manufacturers, not just manufacturers) and the chemicals (per Jytdog); that's a solvable problem, should other WP:RS be found. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libby Weaver. More concretely: Consensus was that there was not notability, no argument was presented that would preclude a redirect and ATD prefers one to none, no prejudice against future editorial work determining if there is material that can be merged into the target. j⚛e deckertalk 02:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing Woman's Syndrome[edit]

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

Self-published book that gained some limited exposure in popular press recently. Unfortunately, its description makes it out to be a purported medical/psychological condition....with questionnaires in popular press. Given it gets exactly zero hits in Google scholar, there are not any sources let alone secondary sources to support this. Hence it is misleading at best and detracts from the Sum of All Knowledge by its being here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but some chopping is justifiable. The article as is links articles about the book in three different newspapers which meets GNG. (which closely resembles part 1 of the special guideline for books) I understand that someone with a COI may have tried to puff up the article and so some of the substandard sources may have to go. I understand that we should not portray it as making any accepted medical claim. But that's a matter for a few strategic distancings like "The author's thesis is...", not deletion. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I should admit that I missed that some of the media references in the article were actually not usable per GNG because they were just the author going on about herself; the article as it stood actually didn't stand the test. But there were articles like [22][23], which is why I hadn't expected the ones in the article to be so unusuable for notability. I think that the "syndrome" appears to be notable and worth documenting as a social and marketing phenomenon. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It's quackery. I have deleted a few inappropriate references. However the remaining four references are adequate to demonstrate nobility of the book and the concept—even though the "syndrome" does not exist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Libby Weaver which is only a stub]]. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the merge is a good idea, but there shouldn't be any admin action involved for that. The page history should be left unmolested, and the page should not be protected against a future reversal of the merge if content about the "syndrome" becomes available from other authors. That could happen at any time, but probably won't. :) Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little doubt that a redirect from Rushing Woman's Syndrome to Libby Weaver would be part of any merge. The redirect page would contain the page history, so that should hopefully meet your concerns. --RexxS (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as it now stands (devoid of irrelevant refs) doesn't meet GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Its notability depends upon a single piece of reliable news coverage in the Australian and that is devoted to debunking the topic. I don't believe the Idealog blog is a reliable source to illustrate significant coverage - who heard of it? It's possible that the author, Libby Weaver, is notable from the sources that mention her - but her notability is not inherited by the book. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent coverage or charting in a well-known best-sellers list. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if Libby Weaver is notable Merge NealeFamily (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The idealog.co.nz is a good book review. The theaustralian.com.au source is not a book review. There are no other sources cited right now, and one source only is not sufficient coverage to establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BK (and WP:MEDRS). Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring horizontal angles[edit]

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

This is essentially an how to guide to using a theodolite. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RHaworth's comment puts it best.--Launchballer 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia, however well written it may be. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of reportedly haunted locations in the United States[edit]

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

The title is a big give-away "List of reportedly haunted....." I cannot yet find a single entry amongst the many hundreds that has a robust and reliable source. All entries seem to be based on blog sites that in turn report "beliefs". There is nothing here that makes the grade with regard to notability. There must be a few sites in the USA which have had national newpaper coverage that can be used or have been discussed in books, in which case there might be a list of a few tens of entries but even entries such as that seem to be missing. In the absence of notability, I would suggest the whole article should go.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three references to .gov and four to .edu. Not sure if any of the books referenced are notable. Most of the references don't seem to qualify as reliable sources. Do the articles linked to on the list include information about them being reported haunted? Are more reliable sources found there? Dream Focus 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The official websites of the places I looked at so far don't list their haunted history. You'd think if that was a major tourist attraction they'd cover that. Various television shows have covered some of these locations. Plenty of local newspaper coverage for things. I'm thinking there would be at least local coverage of anything on the list, proving it has in fact been reported haunted. Editors can determine if anything isn't notable enough to be on the list or not. The article can be fixed by proper editing methods, no need to delete. It seems to have been created by taking articles for each individual state, and just redirecting them all here, and copy and pasting their contents altogether. Dream Focus 09:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling site:*.gov "haunted" I find plenty of results, but it isn't just official government websites talking about haunted histories. Instead I find Halloween attractions like [24] [25] not based on anything actually reported to be haunted. So trouble finding things that way. Are there any books considered reliable sources listing all the reported haunted places in America? Dream Focus 09:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly notable and oft-discussed topic....scientific...errr maybe not...popular/notable...hell yeah. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but not notable as required by wikipedia. If I was to say that my house was haunted and sent a message to one of the sites used for many of the locations, my house would instantly become sufficiently notable, if we were to accept your view of notability. I am sorry , but that is just gossip, not notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything not sourced to a reliable source should be tagged "citation needed" and then if no one finds one should be eliminated. No need to destroy the entire list, simply to get rid of some bad entries that might be there. Dream Focus 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an alternative would be to merge properly sourced entries back into List of reportedly haunted locations from which it was forked in June 2010.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is large enough to be on its own. I noticed you eliminated referenced sources to "The Official Site of Arkansas Department of Parks & Tourism", as well as an entry sourced to the Travel Channel. Please don't just randomly go through deleting things. Dream Focus 10:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Possible Merge - As others have said, the subject itself is notable, however, much of the listed content is not. What this really needs is a massive cleanup to take away the less-than-reputable claims and sources. If, when that is finished, the remainder of the properly sourced information isn't enough to sustain its own article, then a later discussion can potentially merge it back into List of reportedly haunted locations, as Velella suggested. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is valid and there are enough haunted places in the US to justify a split from List of reportedly haunted locations. If sources are poor remove them but I think for this type of subject the sources by nature will be non-academic pop-culture. -- GreenC 00:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Agrahari[edit]

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

Bureaucrats are not inherently notable. Further due to lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources the subjects fails general guidelines about notability. He has only passing mention in few sources. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IAS officers are not inherently notable. There are no independent, reliable references about him in the article. Unable to find any good refs. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable subject, completely agree with BgwhiteItsalleasy (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too junior for any form of inherent notability and doesn't seem to be notable in any other way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be: fringey but notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom time hypothesis[edit]

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

This theory is not notable. It is largely the work of one man, and it has been scarcely noticed outside of Germany. As has been discussed on the Talk page, there are very few reliable sources that have taken the time to refute this theory. This is despite the fact that it implies not just that Charlemagne was invented, but also that a large section of European history, such as the history of Anglo-Saxon England, was also fabricated, and that the history of Islamic was drastically misdated etc. Contrast this with the numerous discussions about UFOs, the JFK Assassination etc. I've found no evidence that this theory is part of popular culture. I suspect this page is itself a major contribution to the limited notability of the subject. In the original nomination the issue of notability was largely not discussed. The consensus was that the theory was nonsense, but that this was not grounds for deletion. However, Wikipedia cannot document every unorthodox theory. Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The German version[26] of this page has an impressive-looking set of references and bibliography, but I've not checked if it's really that great. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a mini-controversy in Germany, but I don't think that a topic that is notable in the German Wikipedia is necessarily notable in the English Wikipedia. The theory is very Germanocentric, even though its implications are global. Unless the theory is taken up outside of Germany, I think the English Wikipedia is unduly promoting an extremely fringe theory. It also seems perverse to argue that if a fringe theory is refuted by a reliable source it is entitled to a page on one of the world's top websites!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How notable? "Heribert Illig" gets less than 30,000 results on Google.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention Google. That the references are German doesn't mean it somehow fails notability, as if Germany isn't a real place - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I mentioned Google. I also don't think I suggested Germany was a phantom place. However, the fact that none of these references have been translated into English suggests the theory is obscure. It is also Wikipedia policy not to promote fringe theories. If Wikipedia is the main English source for this theory, I think Wikipedia is promoting it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things that are notable in German-language sources are notable - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And things that are reliably described as nonsense (in any language) are notable. Things that are generally tacitly accepted are not notable...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a page about a WP:FRINGE theory is not promoting it, and their notability does not have to be weighed against their relative incredibility. Similarly, the lack of support for a fringe theory in the English-speaking world doesn't make it non-notable; we have a page on the Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship which is popular in France, and the Bielefeld Conspiracy meme in German pop culture. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is no evidence that this theory is popular in Germany (or anywhere else), just that for some reason Germans have bothered to criticise it.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Haryana[edit]

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

Blatant soapbox, PROD removed by IP. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per BsZ (as a Jasper Carrot fan your user name cracks me up every time!) ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant violation of WP:NPOV, appears to be synthesis of sources in order to promote an agenda. --Kinu t/c 22:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Bali88 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. RomanSpa (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Corruption in India, of which this is a clear POV fork article. There's lots of useful information herein, but the article is so poorly written and formatted as to require invoking the TNT clause. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am creator of this page but I clear here that I have nothing to do with this page, I am not biased, not gaining popularity, not advertising, not wasting my time as people do when they play cards, if you keep it, you will know with study of references that topic is notable and further you may delete or merge, it will be discouraging for those who spend their time on Wikipedia, thanks for your heed.Rajsector3 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an issue with notability - the article in its current state is just not remotely up to encyclopedia style and quality, and is written in a blatantly attacking style. We just cannot say things like "candidates of Higher merit are left to reel in pain and live like animals" and "It can be easily imagined that what will be the conditions of the pupils taught be the ineligible teachers" in Wikipedia's voice! An article on this topic written in proper WP:NPOV Wikipedia style would probably be fine - but this article is not it. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 1 July 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, §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilasha Gupta[edit]

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

Being elected to a local office is not enough to pass the notability guidelines for politicians. Further, not enough coverage in the media to pass general notability guidelines. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being mayor of a city with a population of over a million is enough for notability (there is no clear-cut rule here, arguably mayors of towns with 10,000-50,000 inhabitants would automatically pass for notability, but with over one million it should be quite clear that there is sufficent notability). --Soman (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point me to any policy which says so ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Common sense. As I commented above there is no fixed rule on when a mayor becomes notable by default, but being mayor of a town with 1 million inhabitants is definately enough. --Soman (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POLOUTCOMES clarifies that as a rule, mayors of cities are indeed quite commonly kept, as long as their articles are properly sourced and more substantive than just "So-and-so is the mayor of such-and-such, the end." Policy doesn't explicitly apply a strict population cutoff — an unofficial 50K rule holds sway with a lot of people, but even the mayor of a much smaller city than 50K can clear the bar if that city's politics gets more media attention than normal (e.g. by virtue of being the capital city of a country or province or state or territory), and the mayor of a much bigger city than 50K can fail to clear the bar if the quality of referencing is for the birds. But for all intents and purposes, a well-sourced article about a mayor of a city with a population of over one million is almost certain to be kept in very nearly all cases. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhilasha Gupta is mayor of Allahabad, a metropolitan city of India, this is enough for notability. An other notable point is , she is wife of Industrialist, MP, MLA, Nand Gopal Gupta alias Nandi. Just search on Google , Abhilash Gupta Mayor in english as well as Hindi... You will find lots of news links. OKKkkk --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Notability is not inherited i.e. being related to a notable person does not add anything to your own notability. Please point me to a policy which says that being mayor of a big city is notable. I did google search and could not find sufficient material. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont understand ir, how could u not get sufficient material on Google abt Abhilash.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now i come to know her full name. Her full name is Abhilasha Gupta Nandi अभिलाषा गुप्ता नंदी . just google by this name. may u find sufficient sources. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeeteshvaishya, yes being elected to a local office is not notable. If you think that Sunil Prabhu fails WP:GNG, you can nominate it for deletion. I could only find 2-3 references, which only discuss that she was elected Mayor. That is not enough. And one more thing, in a deletion discussion, it is not good to say ki "please find sources on google etc". It create mis communication. Two different editors could be seeing different search results on google search. Best practice is to cite the sources. If u think that there are sufficient sources. Please list those here, so that other editors can have a look at those before voting. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not interacted on Wikipedia before today. A local people better tell u that a person is famous or not. Like Sunil Prabhu, His position of mayor, may not be notable at ur point of view, bt most of Mumbaikar knws him. Let leave.

I m going to paste links which i have find on google. okay... wait.let me collect thos links --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • News Links

_ http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/abhilasha-gupta-gets-elected-to-the-post-of-allahabad-mayor-240634

_ http://www.bhaskar.com/article/UP-ALAH-allahabad-mayor-abhilasha-gupta-arrested-4521828-PHO.html

_ http://post.jagran.com/search/abhilasha-gupta-gets-elected-to-the-post-of-allahabad-mayor-1341671866

_ http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Court-Issues-NBW-Against-Allahabad-Mayor-Ex-minister-Husband/2014/02/14/article2056667.ece

_ http://allahabadnagarnigam.in/english/governingbody.htm

_ http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/abhilasha-gupta-gets-elected-to-the-post-of-allahabad-mayor-50112688-in-1.html

_ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/allahabad-mayor-held/article5691562.ece

_ http://activeindiatv.com/component/content/article/97-allahabad/18323-now-nandi-a-abhilasha

_ http://www.canindia.com/2014/02/allahabad-mayor-arrested-for-violating-code-cries-foul/#

_ http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20140311/2355486.html

_ http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/lok-sabha-elections-2014/election2014articleshow/14735612.cms

_ http://www.himalayauk.org/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88-%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8B/abhilasha-gupta-mayor-allahabad/

_ http://www.himalayauk.org/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88-%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8B/abhilasha-gupta-mayor-allahabad/

_ http://hindi.business-standard.com/storypage_hin.php?autono=25404

There are more links, which i have not pasted here... Hoping It is enough for u guys nd I hope, You now get reliable and sufficient sources. nd will be satisfied wid dis. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some expansion and referencing improvements arguably still needed here, but a city of over 1 million people certainly confers notability on its mayors. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2011 Census, the population of the Allahabad city was 1,117,094 and the metro population was 1,216,719. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Executive mayors of cities this size are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, She is notable.. Thanks. can I remove now above message speedy deletion from Abhilasha Gupta page. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no speedy deletion message on the page. But you must not remove the Articles for Deletion notice until the debate has been closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We keep all the mayors of Detroit, and that city has only about 700,000 people. Clearly we should keep the mayors of this city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Elected mayor of a city of 1.1 million people is sufficient for a pass of the SNG high bar for politicians. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A procedural error kept this AfD open for six months, but I don't see any evidence that the extraordinary time span caused any real problems. The biggest issue here is whether WP:CRYSTAL applies; Gzuufy makes a convincing argument why it doesn't. Some argument could be made for calling this No Consensus, but I think both the weight of numbers and the strength of arguments are sufficient to justify calling this Consensus To Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth International[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this article should exist. So far, such an International simply does not exist ; it is not even a coherent concept. We just have very different people (most notably Hugo Chavez) who said, in very different times, that it would be nice to have a Fifth International. As long as this International has not been actually and officially created, I don't think we should have a page, besides brief mentions in Hugo Chavez, History of socialism, History of communism, Bolivarian Revolution, Socialism of the 21st century and so on. In its present state, the article is just misleading, since it would lead some to believe that the "Fifth International" has been a defined and coherent concept, while the various people who have used the term "Fifth International" have nothing in common (unless one thinks there is an intimate political connection between Hugo Chavez in 2007 and Lyndon LaRouche in 1965 !). So far, this "Fifth International" is just wishful thinking : while it deserves to be mentioned here and there, wikipedia should not be used to give it substance. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The League for the Fifth International does exist, and there have been many proposals over the last 75 years. They all have to do with revolutionary socialism, most have to do with Trotskyism, and a broad article on the concept is appropriate, along with articles on the League and various other groups that identify with the concept. By the way, what Chavez had in common with LaRouche in 1965 was self identification as revolutionary socialists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the League for the Fifth International does exist indeed, but I don't think mere proposals made by very different people, for very different reasons, make the Fifth International a reality (or even a coherent concept). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept, as historical proposal or fictional reference, is worth an article (or maybe a merge or redirect). Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Cullen said, this is one proposal for the Fifth International among the others. Hugo Chavez indeed has called for it, and many parties of the socialist current have been invited to it. On top of that, it has been taken seriously by some of the major political players in the European field, like The Left, Germany. As we know, The Left entails many different socialist factions, some of which have even been subject to investigation of Verfassungsschutz for their suspected radical activities. Therefore, I absolutely think that the Fifth International is an important phenomenon amidst the socialist field of today. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the idea of a "fifth" international has been around for decades. Various groups taking that name or using the concept have popped up from time to time.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: AfD wasn't properly formatted or listed. Now listed on today's log for a better hearing and a chance of closure after nearly six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 05:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike the International, Second International, Third International, Two-and-a-Half International, and Fourth International, there is no such thing as the 5th International. Hugo Chavez apparently said that it might be time to start one. Somebody made a swell logo. That's all there is to this: crystal ball speculation. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with disambiguation page: It's a patent case of WP:CRYSTAL. It's also a case of mistakenly assuming that all uses of a phrase refer to the same topic, then trying to make an article out of novel synthesis of all that, a WP:NOR violation, as well as a transgression of our principle that articles cover only one discrete topic and its subtopics. The only thing I would put in its place is a disambiguation page with entries like:
    * Fighting Fifth International, a 1938 proposal by [[POUM]] (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification)
    * Fifth International, a 1941 proposal by Argentine Troskyist [[Quebracho]]
    Any sources cited should be worked into the pages to which these entries would link. Any with no pages yet but for which we have a citation can either be used to create the pages in question if there's enough there, or at least noted for later use, on the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: This is distinguishable from, e.g., Second Constitutional Convention of the United States, because the "Fifth International" is a different entity created/convened through a different process with different role-players, in different places, toward different ends, in every formulation, while the 2CC is the same idea, to take the same form, in the same place, with the same roles (the legislators then in office), and under the same rules, the only significant difference between the proposals being what they hope the constitution-redrafting process will produce, and based on what values. It's like the difference between trying to have an article about a science fiction TV series that might appear next season on BBC 1, but about which we don't know anything other than general genre, vs. an article on various scripts and drafts and pilots and whatever for an upcoming TV series the basic plot of which is known already, and where only details regarding the differences between the treatments vary. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article falls within the Guidelines of WP:CRYSTAL as acceptable. From WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The history of the prior Internationals suggest it is merely a matter of time until the Fifth occurs. The article is referenced, and is reporting discussion and arguments about the prospects for its success. I think that it is quite clear that Fifth International is a topic that is specifically allowed under WP:CRYSTAL's policy. Gzuufy (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but agree with many of the problematic issues with the article raised above. I think the lede paragraph should state quite clearly that it is an amorphous hypothetical concept, used in different ways and times by different people, meaning different things, as well as trying to circumscribe the commonalities (eg, pro-workers, socialist, international movement). Agree with Gzuufy that it is allowable per WP:CRYSTAL, in that while the 5th Intl may not exist as an actual organization, it exists as a concept of one, and the concept as such is real and has a meaning. Another problem touched on above is that there could be POV issues, in the sense that merely having an article on an organization which does not exist, can have an advocacy-effect, in the sense that Wikipedia may be seen as advocating for the creation of this organization merely by having an article on it. So care must be used in the article, but I do not see that as grounds for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this was clearly a close call in terms of sourcing, GNG isn't felt to be met. j⚛e deckertalk 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Homi[edit]

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

Notability of this person is not established as per WP:MUSICBIO, and the references in a local newspaper do not establish sufficient notability for a WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is established per WP:Music #10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable...; namely, Homi played a large part as keyboardist in Yanni Live at the Acropolis which is both a notable concert tour and notable live album/concert film (second in sales to Michael Jackson's Thriller), as well as noting several other notable performers she has toured with stated in the article. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeutralWeak delete (see below). I'm not sure this meets WP:MUSICBIO #10 based on what Cricket02 suggests. The examples for that criterion are things like having performed a theme song for a notable TV show, or inclusion on a notable compilation album. Merely having performed a musical task on an album that's notable probably doesn't meet that criterion. And even presuming it does, there might still be cause for redirecting. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Weak delete as the other !votes have convinced me that MUSICBIO #10 does not apply. As to whether there's a WP:GNG argument, the laundry list of sources look like little more than mentions. It's possible I missed something of course, but I really don't see evidence of the requisite "significant coverage" mentioned in GNG. In short, this is clearly a skilled musician, and clearly a sought-after professional backing singer... but no more notable for Wikipedia purposes than a skilled cardiologist or managing partner of a major law firm. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Clearly she is an accomplished professional musician, but I can't find evidence that she is the subject of substantial coverage that focuses on her. Best I could find was a piece from the local newspaper in Vallejo [27], which refers to her and her husband having "reached the pinnacle of their chosen music industry careers". On the other hand, I note that her AllMusic listing has no biographical information, and (as far as I can see) doesn't list any notable recordings in which she is a principal rather than a sideman. I don't think WP:Music #10 applies because I didn't find any evidence that she was considered a prominent focus of the Yanni tour/film. A well known sideman can certainly be notable, but I don't find the evidence for that here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for added context, that local paper, the Times Herald, has 3 articles about the couple, by the same author, similar in size; 2009-01-01 on neighborhood trash 2009-05-25 on music careers 2010-08-16 on neighborhood graffiti. It kind of drives home that the music career story wasn't due to their exceptional notability, so much as a normal local interest story. On the other hand, given the Yanni/Acropolis association (I agree, small role, but major album), I'm inclined to be more liberal in counting a source like this toward notability. While a lot of its info is supplied by Homi (the article seems pretty careful to qualify statements with "she said", e.g. about performing on the Yanni video), it is at least a nice amount of biographical material, to provide some meat to this Wikipedia article rather than just a discography or list of names. I think her only significant recording in which she was the lead was 2010's Homiopathy, self-published through CD Baby, which did not attract any independent notice. Agyle (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: As noted at WT:AFD, this AfD seems to have fallen through the cracks for technical reasons (and the usual article and "find sources" links are missing) so I think a relisting would be in order. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. The only reason I'm here is because of the WT:AFD link. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more in-depth coverage is found. I found no significant coverage of the subject in published reliable sources. I do consider the subject's performance on a successful album as suggestive of Wikipedia notability, but it is mitigated by being one of eight musicians on the album, and more importantly, without any coverage found about the subject's performance in particular. One of the underlying reasons behind the coverage requirements is described at WP:WHYN, "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." While some allowances are made for certain fields (e.g., nationally elected politicians get articles regardless of coverage; academics get articles based on their work even if there is no coverage about them), I'm not sure how far that should be extended to a musician. To some extent, with a lack of good references, it's a choice between providing terribly deficient coverage of the subject, or no coverage.
Per ♫ Cricket02's suggestion of WP:Music #10, that list of criteria is prefaced with "may be notable if...", and the complete sentence for the excerpt of #10 mentions that if that's the only claim of notability, it may be more appropriate to cover them in an article about the notable work. The section also includes the guidance that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Yanni's is an extremely notable album, but despite that, I found no coverage of it that singled out Homi's performance on it. (It could very well exist; media back than was rarely published online, and copyrights protect such material from being easily found. People with access to private media databases (e.g., journalists) would be better equipped to find it.)
I did find one short/medium bit of coverage, and many minor/one-sentence mentions of the subject in independent reliable sources (most are just performance announcements - I omitted about a dozen more of them them):
  • Electronic Musician, Volume 13, Issues 1-6. Polyphony Publishing Company. 1997. p. 121. Julie Homi, a pianist first and foremost, who 'earns a living playing synths' with artists such as Peter Cetera, Martin Page, Tracy Chapman, and Yanni, also likes to experiment with different piano sounds. 'Generally for ballads — as well as pieces where the piano is exposed — I go for a fat, warm sound,' she explains. 'For rock piano solos where the band is going full tilt, I go for loud and bright, and I make sure I stay above middle C so I can cut through the band. However, a bright sample can sound thin in the bass register, so I might add a second, fatter sound in the first two octaves. Especially when playing single-note lines, it helps to add another piano sound an octave lower for emphasis.' Homi's 'sound system' for her Cetera gig includes a Kurzweil MicroPiano layered with a Roland JV-1080 expander and a Roland JD-800. When performing with Martin Page she adds a Roland MKS- 20, and for Yanni she uses a Korg SG-1D layered with an E-mu EMIII (loaded with the EIII's Bosendorfer sample). Extracted via Google "Snippet View", and I think this is all the coverage of Homi in an article about synthesized piano stage performance that bounces from one musician to another (Brad Cole immediately follows the excerpt on Homi).
  • Feminist Periodicals: A Current Listing of Contents. Office of the Women's Studies Librarian-at-Large, University of Wisconsin System. 1981. p. 50. Julie Homi: A Star on the Rise 16 Seen only in Google "Snippet View"; this seems to be an index of other periodicals, indicating that in some other periodical there's an article called "Julie Homi: A Star on the Rise". No way of knowing how significant it is or where it is.
  • Pollock, Mary (1987). "Recovery and Integrity: The Music of Meg Christian". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 9 (2): 29. doi:10.2307/3346185. ISSN 0160-9009. You know, I used to think that maybe I was less of a musician because I didn't do that or because I didn't practice three or four hours a day the way I've heard Julie Homi do.
  • Yanni; David Rensin (July 2003). Yanni in words. Thorndike Press. p. 315. ISBN 978-0-7862-5453-8. Next, I had to get sixty people to Athens, not to mention my own band: my old friend Charlie Adams on drums, Karen Briggs on violin, Michael Bruno on percussion, Rice Fierabracci on bass, Julie Homi and Bradley Joseph on keyboards.
  • Dahl, Linda (1984). Stormy Weather: The Music and Lives of a Century of Jazzwomen. Limelight Editions. pp. 186, 187. ISBN 978-0-87910-128-2. "...'There's No Separation,' a piece written by former Alive! pianist Julie Homi, is a mature love song; the group's interpretation of..." ... "Several contemporary jazzwomen have participated in that festival's broad offering of music by women, including pianist Julie Homi, the combo Deuce and pianist Mary Watkins.
  • New York Media, LLC (4 February 1985). New York Magazine. New York Media, LLC. p. 91. ISSN 0028-7369. JULIE HOMI, in concert. The composer-keyboardist with vocalist Amanda Homi, others, and guests Carol Chaiken, and Jean Fineberg and Ellen Seeling of Deuce. Jazz Center of N.Y., 380 Lafayette St. (505- 5660), at 9. $5.
  • City Arts Monthly. City Celebration. January 1980. p. 66. ...with Teresa Trull, Julie Homi and Meg Christian, Apr. 26 at 8 pm, First Unitarian...
  • Women Artists News. Vol. 5. Midmarch Associates. 1979. p. 10. Nancy Corporon, freelance French horn player & general manager of the New Amsterdam Symphony Orchestra, recently produced the Teresa Trull / Julie Homi concert in NYC.
  • Women Artists News, Volume 6. Midmarch Associates. 1979. p. 10. Trull is joined on this album by Tui, Julie Homi, and the Villa Holiness Choir, as well as others. The most memorable performance is an outstanding trumpet solo by Ellen Seeling in the jazz tune, 'Musicians.' Buy only if you have Trull fans or...
  • Down Beat, Volume 49. Down Beat Publishing Company. 1982. p. 79. There were 'women's songs' from vocalist Teresa Trull and pianist Julie Homi. Homi's solo was Playing In The Yard by Sonny Rollins, one of the few male composers represented. Ginni Clemmens sang folk songs...
  • The New Yorker, Volume 60, Issues 47-53. F-R Publishing Corporation. 1985. p. 6. Julie Homi — With Carol Chaikin and Jean Fineberg & Ellen Seeling. (Jazz Center of New York. Monday, Jan. 28, at 9.)
  • Rusch, Bob (1991). Cadence. B. Rusch. ...Michaelle Goerlitz, perc; Julie Homi or Patricia Thumas. kybd; Rynata, g; Carolyn Brandy, perc; 12/10-12/90)
  • Deneuve. FRS Enterprises. 1992. p. 11. The early intensive IMA workshops involved such women as Rhiannon (vocals), Barbara Bordern (rhythm section of bass, drums and percussion), Millington and Mimi Fox (electric guitar), Mary Watkins and Julie Homi (keyboards), ...
  • Schwann-1, Record & Tape Guide. ABC Publications. October 1978. James, Gregory – Alicia...Babe Duru, Julie Homi, Hisayo Tominaga Marbles. Yoshi Jewell Silver (compositions by James): Akavit. ... (Rec 11/77. San Francisco) Inner 1050
  • Feminist Bookstore News, Volumes 1-6. Feminist Bookstore News. 1976. p. 3. Not the 'I'm-in-love-with-you' variety, but tenderness and loving; for lovers past, for first awakenings of love (Wonderful to have a recording of Julie Homi's "There's A Light"), for the self that dares to love.
  • Frontiers. University of Colorado, Women Studies Program. 1984. p. 63. ...'Golden River/Golden Dream,' by Janet Small, Rhiannon, and Julie Homi, © 1979 Dismukes Music (BMI) and...
  • Coda, Issues 159-163. J. Norris. 1978. p. 28. Ackamoor recently did a jazz workshop for "Youth and young adults" in Oakland with Julie Homi, Rasul Siddik, John Otis, Wilbur Morris, Baba Duru and Muhammad Tsofiotsom Kaal. The Bay Area is loaded with many musicians with...
  • Chad Jones (February 9, 2007). "'How We First Met' puts real-life love onstage". Oakland Tribune. More often than not, the songs (with improvised but sturdy accompaniment by Dana Cory, Julie Homi and Steve Laciak) start out kind of iffy and then blossom into something with melody, rhymes and humor.
  • Vitello, Barbara (January 23, 1998). "Jazz Sans Crowds? with Timing, Yes". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL). ...the mini-fest is favorite son Chico Freeman and the Fred Hopkins Trio as well as the all-women band She, featuring Julie Homi, Juli Wood, Audrey Morrison, Karen Quinn, Sarah Allen and Bobbi Wilsyn. Tickets are $15 in advance (and for Institute... {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  • Sheffield, Skip (April 29, 1994). "Yani Returns". The News. p. 13E. ... but electric performances by his bassist Rick Fierabracci, drummer Charlie Adams, keyboardists Bradley Joseph and Julie Homi, and particularly violinist Karen Briggs, ...
––Agyle (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I missed some sources (I didn't go far into Google Web); there is one article of significant coverage, which Arxiloxos pointed out above, and the rest is again pretty minor:
  • Raskin-Zrihen, Rachel (2009-01-01). "One man's trash is another man's headache". Times-Herald. Not about musical career; just included for completeness.
  • Raskin-Zrihen, Rachel (2009-05-25). "Roadie, keyboardist a perfect match". Times-Herald. Fairly significant coverage of musical career.
  • Raskin-Zrihen, Rachel (2010-08-16). "Graffiti is far more than a nuisance to Vallejo homeowners, shopkeepers". Times-Herald. Not about musical career; just included for completeness.
  • Wilson, John S. (1981-08-22). "Jazz: Fineberg Quartet". The New York Times. Miss Fineberg's group, which was presented as part of the weeklong Citicorp Second Annual Women in Jazz Festival, included a pianist, Julie Homi, who projected the hallmarks of be-bop as strongly as Miss Fineberg did her Rollins influence, and two male interlopers in this festival of women in jazz... (review of the performance)
  • Holden, Stephen (1993-06-10). "Pop and Jazz in Review". The New York Times. Playing a battery of electronic instruments, he and the two other keyboardists in his band (Julie Homi and Bradley Joseph) insert motifs that evoke the hoariest Hollywood cliches of Middle Eastern, Far Eastern and other regional styles. (review of the performance)
  • Armoudian, Maria (1993-06-24). "Review: 'Yanni'". Variety. Band: Yanni, Karen Briggs, Michael Bruno, Julie Homi , Bradley Joseph, Charlie Adams, Rick Fierabraci (review of the performance)
  • Appleford, Steve (1994-06-24). "Sounds of the Season: The long, hot days will be followed by cool, hip nights as the music scene comes alive in the Valley". The Los Angeles Times. At Bookgrinders, located at 13321 Burbank Blvd., jazzman Chris Blondal performs tonight; jazz guitarist Chris Standring plays Saturday; and jazz keyboardist Julie Homi performs an instrumental concert Aug. 11 and 25. Admission to all performances is free.
  • "Cleveland: Jersey Boys". Talkinbroadway.com. Review of Jersey Boys, which toured in Cleveland, and lists Homi as one of three keyboardists in a large cast; I'm not sure if this is a reliable source, or user-submitted content. (I gather from a non-reliable source that Homi toured with the show for quite a while).
  • Anderson, Pokey (February 1980). "Gospel Blues and a Mean Guitar". Houston Breakthrough. p. 9. Mid-sized article about Teresa Trull and Julie Homi performing (review & info of upcoming performance)...gives much more detailed info on singer/guitarist Trull, the star, with Homi treated more as backup. Not much coverage, but probably a good source for a sentence or so of this article, as I gather they performed together for a while.
  • "Festival displays women's achievements". The Daily Tar Heel. 1979-09-28. p. 8. Teresa Tull, a singer songwriter guitarist with Olivia Records, will close the festival Friday with an 8 p.m. concert in the Great Hall. Trull, who plays and sings Southern blues, gospel, jazz and rock, will be accompanied on piano by Julie Homi. Trull's most recent album, The Ways a Woman Can Be, was performed and recorded by women.
Also, two primary sources that are not independent at all, but might be useful for further research, are Homi's Linkedin page, and a CD Universe sales page for Homiopathy, her self-published 2010 album.
––Agyle (talk) 10:57, 1 July 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, Ansh666 04:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is a pretty interesting case. A backing musician, fairly successful as such (earning a living at it, working with some major acts, respect of her peers), but she appears to fall just short of our notability criteria. Performing on Yanni Live at the Acropolis does not pass WP:BAND#10: that's not her album, it's Yanni's, and BAND#10 is for works credited to the artist in question; neither does she meet #6 for working for several other artists because backing musicians are not usually considered "reasonably prominent members" of ensembles, and the bands she has been a full member of do not appear to be notable in their own right. Of the sources posted above, only one (the Times-Herald) is significant coverage, but it's local (it's the community paper of Vallejo, where she lives). After that there's the Electronic Musician article, which contains a brief blurb about her and a quote, but not much more than that. And the article listed in the Feminist Periodicals catalogue, which we know nothing about. The rest all appear to be passing mentions and concert listings. If somebody can uncover some more substantial coverage of her in particular, or dig up that "Star on the Rise" article and establish that it's a reliable, third-party, etc. publication, I'll gladly change my !vote. — Gwalla | Talk 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per Gwalla. Searched, found mentions, clearly a top-caliber musician, unfortunately doesn't meet the GNG, but I hope if this article gets deleted, that she will be back in Wikipedia sooner or later.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali Venkat[edit]

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

Repeatedly-recreated bio of an Indian actor, speedy-deleted three times in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 and should have probably been salted at that point.
In any case, the current incarnation is significantly expanded over the deleted versions, but relies only on two sources, one of which is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (an interview). The subject does not seem to meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:ACTORBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, done enough notable work. His progress has been recognized and reported in the media [28]. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that "progress" is more or less the point. You don't get a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming. You must have already arrived. That's why we have this AFD proposal, to determine if he has, indeed, arrived in accordance with WP:ACTORBIO, or is he merely up-and-coming. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sharp (bass guitarist)[edit]

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

No reason for an individual article. The "touring musician" bit is not sufficient for notability, and by himself he has no hits, no records on a major label--in short, no reason to have an article. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Prima facie fails WP:MUSICBIO with no reliable independent sources found. I don't see an obvious redirect to one of the bands he has played with but I think (some?) of the content is worth keeping. Neutral for now, a valid suggestion for a merge/redirect target might persuade me otherwise.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete: additional sources do not provide significant discussion of the subject. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Hospitals[edit]

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

Not notable Shyamsunder (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, User Shyamsunder is intentionally keeping this page for deletion. Administrators are requested to warn/block this user. GKCH (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Gokulchandola: Not a valid argument to keep the article. If articles do not meet certain criteria, they are deleted. There nothing done intentionally and Shyamsunder is aware of what he is doing. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:LeoFrank that this is discussion section for article may keep/delete. If you read some links given by User:MelanieN feel relevance of page. Paras Hospital is one of the best hospital in NCR. Yes I agree information need to be added.GKCH (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Gokulchandola: You are not getting the point. Please read WP:ATA. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article itself contains only primary sources, but a search finds some coverage and many mentions in Reliable Sources.[29][30][31][32] Given that I was only searching in English, it is reasonable to assume there would be more coverage in other languages. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From the sources you have mentioned, this is a very small article. The other three: [33], [34], [35] are mostly about treatments that some people have received at this hospital and are not really covering the hospital as such. It fails WP:GNG. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Per the message left on my TP An editor feels I closed this early than needed be so thus reopened/relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only passing mentions, as LeoFrank says. No indication of notability - thankfully, the idea of inherent notability has not yet passed from schools to hospitals. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, only trivial or passing mentions in sources, although there could be substantial material in Indian languages that I can't read. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak or strong but Delete - not notable enough to be here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ting[edit]

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

Not notable. Few internet sources, with the vast majority pointing back to this article. Article makes/made claims which cannot be verified. Lack of reliable sources. Gulbenk (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks quant18, I didn't realise he was the deputy mayor of Taipei. A Google search for "台湾丁庭宇" returns sufficient coverage in third party sources to establish notability. There is an in depth analysis of his finances by Apple Daily (Taiwan) here, in depth coverage in this Wuhan news report and another article with significant coverage here. FWIW he also has an entry on Baidu.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as deputy mayor of Taipei.--TM 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Language barriers are always a problem (my original search originally showed several people named Timothy Ting), but as a deputy mayor for the capital of Taiwan, plus coverage in several reliable sources, he's notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: G5, created by block-evading sockpuppet. --Kinu t/c 20:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Green.[edit]

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

Page title cannot have a full stop after the surname to circumvent disambiguation. Not notable and should be added to Michael Green disambiguation page with link to Angry Grandpa. Piguy101 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Revival[edit]

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

"Disney revival" does not meet WP:GNG. The only mentions I can find are trivial and/or on blogs and fansites. This reads more like an essay than an encyclopedic entry. See WP:NOT#FANSITE. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Book hits seem to refer to the earlier Eisner period, not the present. I'm not terribly convinced that those references mean to establish it as the name of an era in the company history, or I would suggest a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When is this Eisner period?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1984-2005. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know of any reason to delete this article based on the period rather than the term?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Period" in the question means period as in period of time. Term means the term "Disney Revival". Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This period of 2009-???? is arbitrary and the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. Changing the title won't fix this. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most companies have ups and down. It seems like the author of the article has just picked an arbitrary period in which the company produced a few hit films. The Disney Renaissance was generally regarded as a new era for the company, not just in terms of success but a complete overhaul of business practises and expansion into other media. Moreover, a "revival" generally follows a downturn, but following the departure of Eisner in 2004 the company continued to grow with huge hits such as "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Alice in Wonderland" and the acquisition of Pixar and Marvel. For this article to exist—regardless of what it is called—the specific period needs to be discussed by reliable sources as a notable era on its own merits, which doesn't seem to be the case here. There is a brief history of Disney's different eras at [36]. Betty Logan (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Attempt to establish, on Wikipedia rather than in third-party sources, an unestablished term for an unestablished period (Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh are considered disappointments by the studio itself). Never seen this term used as a proper noun in any third-party reliable source (all uses of term in source search above are as "Disney revival", note case). Article content duplicates coverage of Walt Disney Animation Studios and Modern animation in the United States. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fan-driven original synthesis, pure and simple. No place in an encyclopedia. --McDoobAU93 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean, you still would have voted to delete this article even from the Disney Wiki?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "the Disney Wiki". --McDoobAU93 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://disney.wikia.com Georgia guy (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the Disney Wiki. It may have different standards for verifiability than this site does. For Wikia, it may be just fine. For Wikipedia, it isn't. --McDoobAU93 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you're saying it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, which means any encyclopedia. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say any encyclopedia that isn't complete shit then. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll say it ... no, not for any encyclopedia, and especially not this one. --McDoobAU93 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Did a search, nothing reliable, I always question book sources as they are hard to verify and easy to imbellish. Just give the perception of promotion by means of wikipedia.--0pen$0urce (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a term that was just made in up in the editors mind. Koala15 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disproof of Koala15's statement. Disney Wikia uses it. Georgia guy (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we know the editor who created this article didn't also create the Wikia article? Wikis aren't reliable sources. --McDoobAU93 16:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Disney wiki to see if they actually created the Disney wiki article. Georgia guy (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Out of curiosity, I did. It was created in March 2014 by someone using the screen name "Nintenmouse". We have no way of proving that Nintenmouse and Pixar1986 are (or are not) the same person. And you know what else? It doesn't matter. It's still another wiki, and by WP:UGC it's not reliable and thus cannot be used as a basis for an edit here, much less an entire article's raison d'être. --McDoobAU93 17:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC
  • Delete. The source in question is on a wikia, but not on this wikipedia. Plus WP:GNG and WP:UGC, I think it's safe to say that this article is unnecessary. The reliable sources part is heavily missing here, no credible proof to admit this article. Lesmiserables95 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A11'd - WilyD 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religitard[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:NEO, or WP:DICTIONARY. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I cannot endorse the speedy as I did find enough references to see that this is not a recent coinage. But there seems to be nothing more to say than that it is a slur, so I'm seeing WP:DICTIONARY as grounds for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I 100% agree with NatGertler - It's nothing but made up / an attack. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per NatGertler.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_1&oldid=1142628850"