Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Society[edit]

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

Delete because fails general notability guidelines. This was a short run BBC TV program that did not attract much attention except for a few Monty Python jokes left over from the Cheese Shop skit. There is no significant coverage. Both of the listed sources are for the apparently unrelated Cheese Society Café. According to this BBC News article The Cheese Society is a known specialist cheese retailer and owner Kate O'Meara decided to take the next step by expanding the business into a cafe. The "Cheese Society is not to be confused with the American Cheese Society which is an artisanal cheese manufacturers association. Bejnar (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even close to being notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources.- Mr X 01:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 15 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Abbott (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 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 to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:08, 15 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russell Howard Show[edit]

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

Article about a radio show. The only available sources seem to be trivial mentions and closely connected sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 23:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn. Non-notable radio show JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little coverage independent of the subject. Unless additional sources are found proving otherwise, fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 03:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find satisfactory non-connected references. RomanSpa (talk) 09:29, 16 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 Woodlands, Singapore. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Primary School, Singapore[edit]

(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) 23:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, nothing particularly special about it. --Bejnar (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woodlands, Singapore per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding precedent at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 20:03, 17 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 keep. Appears to be pointy nomination - AFD is not for "blowing up and restarting" the panda ₯’ 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superbook[edit]

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

Fundamentally screwed up article. Not clear what is correct and what is wrong. Looks like a vandalism magnet. In my opinion, article is a candidate for WP:TNT and should at least be semi-protected by recreation. The Banner talk 23:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD isn't cleanup. Seek semi-protection and WP:FIXIT; notable early anime series airing on major American cable network. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my comment about what the problem is? Did you take a look in the history? Did you take a look at the talkpage? WP:TNT is not about clean up, it is about blowing it up and starting all over again. The Banner talk 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did; you have the wrong venue for asking for action on this page. The program is obviously notable and this article will be kept; ask for a good period of semi-protection and cleanup the page rather than going through a venue where nothing can really be done except a nuclear option. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the article is by now totally unreliable and in my opinion beyond rescue. When you want to rescue it, fine. My intention is to blow it up and let somebody with knowledge of this program start all over again. The Banner talk 03:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article has good references, just take things from those and delete and re-arrange it will prob take you 30 - 45 mins tops to do so. I will do what I can to help out too - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm with Mrschimf. It is clear that this nominator is just a beginner. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that FilmandTVFan28 is willing to take down his false accusation that I am a beginner down. The facts clearly point out otherwise. The Banner talk 03:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not accusing anyone. Me and Mrschimf are actually right. You could've at least discussed your problem with Superbook on the article's talk page instead of making a nomination. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. The problems with the article are not so overwhelmingly awful that it should be deleted and re-created, and AfD is not the proper place to seek article protection. Sometimes articles can receive protection (usually WP:SALTing), but this is not the right avenue for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting a page is definitely not the correct way to go about trying to fix it. WP:TNT isn't a policy either, and WP:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion suggests that one should always edit not delete if possible. That said, we shouldn't be accusing people of being beginners because we disagree with them. JTdale ^Talk 11:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as others have said WP:AfD is not the place for an article just needing cleanup done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, an article that needs cleanup does not need to be deleted. LuigiToeness (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominators rational is no reason to delete an article an the essay he links to as a very bad idea. AfD is not cleanup nor is WP:SUSCEPTIBLE ever a reason to do anything but clean the article up and protect it. I'll finally point out that the article has not been vandalized in the last two months. So this is a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of calendar do you use? I see a massive revert of your hand on 21 May, what is less then two months ago according to my calender. The Banner talk 01:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant, this article's not in danger of constant vandalism. And, even if it were, the article would receive temporary protection preventing such attacks. I change my vote from "keep" to speedy keep. LuigiToeness (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last time it was vandalized was mid May. Now it is mid July. That is a two month difference. However, you were trying to imply that the article was being heavily vandalized now as part of your justification to delete it. —Farix (t | c) 04:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to make a reliable encyclopaedia with reliable articles. Can you vouch for it that this article is 100% reliable? The Banner talk 11:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just trolling because you cannot vouch that any article is 100% reliable. But that is still no reason to delete. —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling, I did ask you a question. The Banner talk 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you purposely throw out red herring questions, it is trolling. —Farix (t | c) 13:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, so you have no arguments that you have to get personal. The Banner talk 13:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No article can be 100% reliable on Wikipedia. That is it's nature. JTdale ^Talk 13:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I even doubt that it is 75% reliable within the given sources... The Banner talk 13:15, 14 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 Bray. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil Chualann[edit]

(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) 23:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bray per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bray per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 14 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable small college football "rivalry" that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This article lists no independent, reliable sources to support the notability of this "rivalry," and a Google search reveals no in-depth coverage, either. How could it? This "rivalry" is three years old, and that fails the common sense test of what a meaningful sports rivalry is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an FBS rivalry, and followed solely by DC-based media as a 'and finally' in sports reports because of the lack of prestige for the Georgetown and Howard football programs; cannot be extended to basketball either as that's probably heavily bent to Georgetown. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Georgetown Hoyas football, Howard Bison football, or both, as necessary. While "rivalry" articles about teams that have hardly ever played each other is certainly not an unknown phenomenon on Wikipedia (see this, and this, and this, and this), as Dirtlawyer notes, these two teams have played each other a grand total of three times, both play in different conferences, and have no significant history of playing against each other. Maybe in 20 years, if this series continues (and there's no guarantee that it will as these teams play in different conferences), this will be a rivalry worth writing about, but, right now, it can probably best be briefly summarized on the individual program pages. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete three games in six years does not a "rivalry" make.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references. RomanSpa (talk) 09:31, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna W. Clendening[edit]

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

Wikipedia article created for someone just recently on America's Got Talent. A singer whose music has not been on national radio rotation or sign and released an album. Being on American Idol let alone America's Got Talent doesn't usually deserve an article unless the person is a finalist. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like she wrote it herself. "Social media actress" could be a topic for an article though. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete - I started the page and wrote the contents that is currently there. The page will be updated in the next day by folks that are close to Anna. IMO (I am her father), I believe the collective here will find the updated content (there is much more to her than AGT) worthy of some category. While Anna is quite involved in many social media circles, she contributes daily through music and live broadcasting to supporting many young people, like herself, who suffer from an anxiety and depression disorder. Thank you, Michael S. Clendening Sr. (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathize with her father, we need better sourcing. Right now, she's just a run of the mill contestant. Even with Susan Boyle, I only !voted a weak keep for her, immediately after she had her first YouTube hit. For this one, I think it's just too soon to have a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per BLP-1E (sources counting to notability being related to a single isolated event, her contestantship) — with due respect to her father. Good luck to her on TV. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 17 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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Davies[edit]

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

Church official seems not notable, no significant independent coverage found in reliable sources. He is covered by organizations owned/supported by the church on which his notability is predicated, but these aren't independent sources. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) owns Deseret Management Corp., which publishes the daily newspaper Deseret News, its weekly insert Church News, and the annual Deseret News Church Almanac, and Intellectual Reserve Inc., which owns Lds.org, MormonNewsroom.org which produces press releases, Liahona magazine, and Ensign magazine. Agyle (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Are you bound and determined to delete every article that features only LDS-related sources? If that's the case, we can kiss most of the articles about general authorities goodbye, and I don't think that's fair or just. Davies is notable because of his service as a member of the Presiding Bishopric. He participates in all decisions that the Presiding Bishopric is empowered to make, as well as having a prominent role in the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes as prescribed by revelation. He is one of only 19 men who have served as Second Cousnelors in the Presiding Bishopric in this dispensation. I don't see any other Presiding Bishopric members, present or former, being singled out for deletion, so I don't know why Davies is being so singled out. I understand (and even accept) what was said about this article not meeting GNG, but I'm still very much afraid that we are doing articles a grave injustice by nominating them for deletion without first discussing on the talk page how to handle the items of concern (such as GNG). My vote is to keep this article because it can and should be improved, and he is notable. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you bound and determined to delete...?" No, but I think it's a question worth raising.
"...I don't t hink that's fair or just." The same notability standards apply to other biographies on Wikipedia.
"...I don't know why Davies is being so singled out." Caussé and Stevenson seem similarly non-notable, but a single AfD may suggest whether the others are worth nominating, and Davies is the lowest ranking of the three.
"...without first discussing on the talk page..." The only concern is notability. It can be addressed by citing independent sources in an AfD just as well as it can be done in Talk. If AfD's don't allow enough time, how long should Talk discussions be given before nomination?
"My vote is to keep..." I'd suggest adding "Keep" in bold at the paragraph's start.

––Agyle (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles on every other member of the presiding bishopric. This is a long term position that involves overseeing a large, international operation. I am 100% sure that sources do exist, they may however by very hard to find, and we should not prejudice against finding them. The fact that all predecessors in this position have articles strongly suggests this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other recently-appointed bishop articles exist, but also lack independent reliable source references. A glance at a small number of articles does show independent references cited in biographies of bishops from a century ago. Agyle (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much, but I did find a few web results mentioning Davies that are not owned or operated by the LDS Church. See this link, in which he is mentioned in his new assignment, this link, which though it was from a paper that claims to be Arizona's Mormon Newspaper, is not owned or operated by the Church, and this link, which, though it is copied from the Deseret News, mentions how the entire Presiding Bishopric, Davies included, were honored for their humanitarian outreach. That was what I was able to find just on the first three pages of a Google search. So non-LDS related sources are out there. It just might take a little digging to find them. I will leave it to someone with more Wikipedia policy knowledge than I have to determine which, if any, of these sources, can and should be included in the article and if it makes a difference to this AfD discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the first link is an article by an SL Trib reporter, but the last few paragraphs in which Davies is described are below the reporter's final byline, and are attributed as "Source: LDS Church". The second link seems unequivocally independent, but the first and third, being generated by the Church, seem questionable; while WP:GNG says "independent of the subject" excludes press releases or other works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with the subject, someone suggested in a similar AfD that independent sources reprinting such press releases indicate notability. Agyle (talk) 22:32, 9 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, -- John Reaves 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough about this LDS leader, in reliable, independent sources, to pass notability. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources, so others can consider them? ––Agyle (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's not much in the article sourcing-wise to show notability. At least he seems to be higher up in the leadership than the last "general authority" AFD I happened across, but there's no real way I can have a feel for why these folks are notable, aside from having the sourcing to show it. But if Presiding Bishop (LDS Church) membership is a higher standard than just every "general authority" than that's a more reasonable case.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, job duties are varied, but as a member of the bishopric, Dean could be considered in the top 18 of the 115 or so general authorities. The 3-person presidency is kind of like a CEO, the 3-person presiding bishopric kind of like a COO, overseeing directors of the bureaucratic side of the business (facilities management, purchasing, membership & statistical reports, translation distribution, etc.), and the Council of the Twelve oversees executive committees on the ecclesiastical side.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs)

Delete: Not enough sources. p bp 23:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it is quite obvious from this discussion that there is significant coverage in unreliable sources. There might also be some insignificant coverage in reliable sources. Neither passes the GNG, and rightly so: without significant coverage in reliable sources we can't write even a basic biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right here. The proponents of this article may not realize that having such BLPs without proper reliable sourcing exposes these articles to abuse, something I am sure they don't wish for.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal sources are not significant coverage, notability not shown for local position. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 21 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 merge to List of Star Wars books. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Jedi[edit]

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

Game-book that doesn't meet WP:NBOOKS because of a lack of reliable sources. Also has no alternate claims (use as a textbook or awards, for example). Mikeblas (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to List of Star Wars books or List of Star Wars books#The Lost Jedi (0 BBY - 2 ABY). Not independently notable, but I think could add a bit of useful detail to the "books" article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:58, 12 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do as above recommended. I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as User:Hobbes Goodyear indicated, not independently notable, but useful information for List of Star Wars books or List of Star Wars books#The Lost Jedi (0 BBY - 2 ABY). LuigiToeness (talk) 21:51, 13 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Lola Wants (film)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since January 2012. I personally think it is notable because it presumably meets WP:GNG and involved established director and actors (Nabil Ayouch and Laura Ramsey). But since there are at least 3 users who think this is not notable (One who added the tag+2 who reverted removal of the tag) then maybe there is a consensus to delete/redirect it. Tachfin (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article provides all of two dead links and one to picture's iMDB entry. Just because it involved a director and actors with WP articles does not mean this film merits an article--many, perhaps most, film people have some non-notable crud on their CV's. And "presumably meets WP:GNG"--huh? GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Commercially, it seems to have been an utter flop--is there evidence that it received any proper theatrical release at all? Did this work just receive some token coverage before it sank out of site, or can you provide evidence of the "significant coverage" that GNG requires? And if you can, why are you nominating this article for deletion instead of improving it? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided in the heading of the nomination, include leads that it received coverage. Additionally, having been directed by an established director such as Nabil Ayouch, it is reasonable to assume that, at the time of its release, the movie received relatively significant coverage in the media. Also, bear in mind there is a book of the same title (Whatever Lola Wants). Some additional coverage in French here Tachfin (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found several reviews as well as mention in a couple of academic texts. I've also found coverage here and here, although the second is in French and would require someone fluent to discover what it says. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tokyogirl79 has massively improved the article, including adding many more refs than suggested by vote above. Well done. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, invalid nom This is the most pointy nom I have seen in years. Tachfin had been edit-warring about a notability tag, just asserting that the aricle was notable but, unlike Tolyogirl79, left it at that. When they were reverted they started this AFD. Tachfin has been edit warring about notability tags at other, similarly insufficiently sourced articles, too. They seem to be unable to grasp the difference between a notability tag, which indicates an article may not meet the notability guidelines, and an AFD, which one starts because, after going through WP:BEFORE (with Tachfin not giving the slightest indication of having followed), one feels that an article is not notable. Tags are for cases like this, where notability may exist but is not shown in the article itself. Now that Tokyogirl79 has improved the article, this AFD can be closed speedily (no "delete" !votes left, no valid nom) and no tag is necessary an more. --Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content not people, plain slander on your part, this is not about me but about the article. Since your comment is entirely composed of unfounded smear-grumpy accusations at me, I inform everybody that the only times I've ever (ever) undid something in relation to a maintenance tag was with you involved, and that was ONLY twice. Once in Maroc Hebdo where you added a notability tag to something that was sky-blue-obviously notable, and which you let down after being proved that you were ridiculously wrong and exhibited a ridiculous behaviour by edit-warring over an inappropriate tag in a sourced few-hours-old stub. And this one where you followed me from another completely unrelated dispute just to undo me because I undid someone (how to call that childish? trollish?).

Re the article, I am neutral and as explained above, the reason I initially presumed it meets GNG was because the director is well known so I assumed it got coverage. But because multiple editors (3 different editors including you) deemed it necessary to tag it for questionable notability then maybe they had a point, and because provisional Google search did not return something that would amount to "significant coverage" (and not only mentions) especially that there were results about the homonymous book too. This is what AFDs are for; attract community's attention on articles that potentially fail notability guidelines. BTW, why didn't you, unlike Tolyogirl79, improve the article instead if unproductively undoing? Whether here or in Maroc Hebdo, you did not make any honest attempt to assess the notability of the article, choosing instead to edit-war over a tag and ask others to do what is equally your duty, WP:SOFIXIT, you know. Tachfin (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your AfD of the notability tag. Note that Maroc Hebdoc (although not the subject here) still has no sources indicating notability (nor does it even have a claim in the article that it is somehow notable). That I gave up in the face of your edit-warring does not mean that I was "proved ridiculously wrong". Instead of wasting everybody's time with your antics, you should work on improving articles like that, instead of creating badly-sourced stubs and fighting with other people. And I really do like your sense of humor: "Comment on content not people" indeed! :-D --Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt & Tokyogirl79's massive improvements (Thanks MichaelQSchmidt & Tokyogirl79), I see no reason for deletion now. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:52, 15 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv-Naresh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, No references to show up significance of the the subject — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 18:02, Sunday, May 5, 2024 (UTC) 09:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion; conflict of interest Drsharan (talk) 09:51, 7 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 07:29, 17 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting For Wednesday[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band which makes no substantive claim of actually passing WP:NMUSIC — as written, about all it does is make assertions about the band's existence, without once even suggesting a reason why they would belong in an encyclopedia. Delete if the article can't be salvaged with real referencing and a substantive claim of actual notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, and I didn't find anything useful to even hint at notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 17:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Drugs & Superheroes[edit]

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

There is no reason tho think this book notable. It is so far in a total of one library, according to WorldCat [1] .

The article has been here for a year; it has had about 40 edits, about 1/3 of them by experienced editors here, who have fixed trivial details, but apparently never thought of looking at the actual notability. See above for the article on the author (it's his only published book). DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the article's length, the book is actually fairly non-notable. I can't find any coverage in sources that would be considered reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll endorse deletion of the author's article as well. This is a pretty clear case of WP:PUFFERY when it comes down to it- this is an incredibly non-notable work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little digging and sure enough, this was written by Reddish himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I wrote it as an admirer of David Reddish's writing. See below or the discussino page for David Reddish Froggie19Dude (talk)

Delete as vanity. Fails WP:NBOOK despite claims to its having started the new subgenre of fiction "geek out lit". "Greek out lit" is a term supposedly created by website GuerrillaBookworm, and used at least once by Ian Denning in his blog here. But the term existed long before this book was published, see the 10 September 2009 blog Michael. "sexism in comics? i can hardly believe it!".. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of 02:59, 14 July, (UTC), the article's original author has removed the claim about the "new" subgenre. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ does not meet WP:NBOOK. LuigiToeness (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's released two books, including one earlier this month. I went in and edited to conform to neutrality policy and formatting. And while I admire his work he and I are not the same person. Reliable sources are here:[2], and here [3]Froggie19Dude (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge you've swayed me Froggie19Dude. But this should be merged into the author's article. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you LuigiToeness! As far as the merger goes, should I do as much, or does that fall to another level of Wiki user? Froggie19Dude (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do anything yet. Both articles are at AfD and you should wait to learn the outcomes. (Also, could you try properly indenting your remarks, please? You'll find helpful information at WP:THREAD.) Msnicki (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Started merge discussion on respective pages.Froggie19Dude (talk)

Delete. Sources offered are a hodgepodge of WP:PRIMARY and WP:QUESTIONABLE sources including interviews with and articles by the author (all obviously primary) and pure junk. Completely fails to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A merge to the author's article does not make sense when the main claim to notability for the author is that he wrote this book. Rather circular. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Additional sources cited in discussion on author page. The claim to notability is that the author has written several books and essays, not just this one.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By "several books", you mean two, yes? -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Two published, along with essays and I think a webseries. As previously discussed on the author page, I'll make a few observations in support of merge or retention of both articles here: Regarding the Bent-Con pages [bent-con.org], if you read the mission statement, policies and details regarding the group, they are not-for-profit and confirm Reddish as a noted guest. Not just anyone can get featured status, panel discussions or be used in publicity, which Reddish does all three as evidenced by the Youtube documentary in which he's featured prominently. The publicity in question advertises the convention with Reddish as a guest, not his work. Regarding The Daily Journal, if you pay attention to the formatting of the article, it is classified by the newspaper as a "news expose'," not a lifestyle interview or people profile, both of which are other categories listed on the website and, I would assume, the print edition. Nowhere does the author of the piece say he interviewed Reddish, and while he does offer quotes, he also makes assertions about Reddish's life that are unsourced, even within the sources discussed here. He could have drawn from other interviews, or interviewed Reddish's friends, family, collaborators, etc. Another article at The Daily Journal mentions a speaking engagement and Reddish's two novels and cites nothing from the author personally. Reddish's essay for The Advocate establishs him a writer for a major publication, and if you examine the full article which mentions his novel, it places it in a greater context as a work as noteworthy as major music, film and television entries. It does not appear that Reddish personally had anything to do with his mention of his novel in The Advocate, nor did he write or coerce his name into Bent-Con programming or publicity. Upon reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for notablility and sourching, the reviews from websites MyTakeOnTV.com and PinkisthenewBlog.com should be acceptable under Wiki guidlines since both Courtney K. and Trent Vanegas exert full editorial control over their content. Wikipedia rules state that opinion blogs are unreliable regarding opinions of people, but not their work. Moreover, the previously discussed article at gay.net qualifies as WP:SECONDARY because, while it does interpolate original research in the form of an interview, the preceeding paragraph is a review of the novel not based on anything said in the interview itself. Thus, the cited sources of The Daily Journal, MyTakeonTV.com, Bent-Con.org, PinkistheNewBlog.com, gay.net and The Advocate should all be permissable under Wiki guidelines because they are independent, edited sources providing significant coverage or attestation to the notability of Reddish and his work. Also, having reviewed Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, both The Daily Journal article and the Gay.net article also qualify as reliable sources on another level: Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis. Ergo, even if an interview appears as part of the article, if it is merged with original writing, and in this case, both articles are, it qualifies as WP: SECONDARY. In terms of notability, we have discussed significant coverage here, including independent and reliable sources that would suggest Reddish, his novel Sex, Drugs & Superheroes or come combined entry of the two should be included here.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage in third-party WP:RS sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Before dismissing a source, it might benefit all of us involved in this discussion if a user might detail the reasons why a specific outlet is ineligible for use as WP:RS. It could lead to a more informed and precise discussion of the matters at hand.Froggie19Dude (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TokyoGirl79's detective work is compelling. This is a non-notable book whose article was written by a sockmaster with a COI. Even if it were notable, this would probably need to be rewritten from scratch, and I would support deletion per WP:TNT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Reddish[edit]

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

There is no reason tho think this author notable. His one published book so far is in a total of one library, according to WorldCat [4] .

The article has been here for a year; it has had 35 edits, about 1/3 of them by experienced editors here, who have fixed trivial details, but apparently never thought of looking at the actual notability.

See below for the afd on the one book. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are completely worthless. 'Nuff said. Msnicki (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fairly non-notable person. None of the sources in the article are in places we'd consider to be RS and there's not any coverage out there in reliable sources. Despite the original editor's attempt to spin doctor and puff up the accomplishments, this person is decidedly non-notable. It might be speedyable, although the wording here is written in such a manner that at first glance someone might decline it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little digging and sure enough, this was written by Reddish himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, no he didn't write it himself, I did! I was a fan of his essays when we were both in college and he ran a now-defunct message board under the Froggie19Dude handle. I picked it up when he abandoned it for more "legit" writings.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible. I simply don't believe you. Msnicki (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CREATIVE. These are not the type of sources that show "significant coverage". --Bejnar (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddish released two books, including one earlier this month. I went in and edited to conform to neutrality policy and formatting. Reliable sources are here:[5], and here [6]Froggie19Dude (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, others might accept them but I'm not buying these as reliable independent secondary sources. The daily-journal.com article is basically an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The daily-journal.com article contains none of this secondary thinking. And the advocate.com article offers basically one sentence, the very essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC

In that case, why aren't the reviews of his novel, some of which are found here [7], here [8] or appearances as a featured guest here [9] or a link on his publisher's website here [10] considered secondary? Also, this may fall into gray area between Primary & Secondary source, but this link: [11] includes a large portion of independent review. He's a minor author, but a notworthy one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggie19Dude (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 July 2014‎

There are two problems with your argument. First, sources offered in support of notability need to clear the hurdle as reliable, independent and secondary. The sources you're offering don't. We do not accept blog sites like guerrillabookworm.com, pinkisthenewblog.com and bent-con.org as reliable because they lack the necessary reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The digitalfabulists.com and the gay.net sources are unhelpful because they're WP:PRIMARY, the former having been written by the subject himself and the latter being an interview with the subject, meaning it's all just his own words. Second, notability is not WP:INHERITED, meaning that writing a notable book does make the author notable. Each subject of a separate article here on Wikipedia must be notable on its own. If a book is notable but the author isn't, we'll have an article on the book and we may include content discussing the author but the author won't have a separate article. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I must contend that in the case of Bent-Con.org, the group is non-for-profit and does have an editorial staff [12]. Furthermore, mentioning Reddish's attendence as a featured guest here [13] as well as his appearance in the video found here [14] confirm his participation and are WP:SECONDARY. Regarding the daily-journal.com and the gay.net citations, the journal article contains quotes, but is listed as "news" on the site; nowhere does it say it's an interview [15]. The gay.net piece does contain an interview, but also a large portion of the author's opinions. Surely we cannot disregard any article simply because the subject is quoted! I also ran a search and discovered two other tidbits, one again on daily-journal.com about an upcoming speaking engagement here [16] and an essay written by Reddish for The Advocate here [17], which supports the argument that the author, if not neccisarily his work, is worthy of note. Also, regarding the book review on Advocate.com, additional context should be noted. Please examine the link here [18] which provides a bigger picture; the magazine is ranking the novel on par for note with major television shows, films and theatrical productions.Froggie19Dude (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal I propose that Sex, Drugs & Superheroes be merged into David Reddish. Combining sources from Sex, Drugs & Superheroes can easily be combined in the David Reddish, and merging will not cause any problems as far as article size. See talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish, for further discussion.Froggie19Dude (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Merging the book article to the author article does not resolve this as neither the book nor the author has the requisite coverage for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion - Added additional independent sourcing which etablishes notabliltiy. Given that the author has just released a new book in recent weeks suggests further sources will be forthcoming and furthermore that, at least for the time being, novel pages should be combined with the author page as he has shown noteworthy work as verified by the aforementioned sources.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you point out which source you deem to be independent? I've looked at all the sourcing, including what was just added, and none of it establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply - Happy to help Whpq. Regarding the Bent-Con pages [bent-con.org], if you read the mission statement, policies and details regarding the group, they are not-for-profit and confirm Reddish as a noted guest. Not just anyone can get featured status, panel discussions or be used in publicity, which Reddish does all threem as evidenced by the Youtube documentary in which he's featured prominently. Regarding The Daily Journal, if you pay attention to the formatting of the article, it is classified by the newspaper as a "news expose'," not a lifestyle interview or people profile, both of which are other categories listed on the website and, I would assume, the print edition. Nowhere does the author of the piece say he interviewed Reddish, and while he does offer quotes, he also makes assertions about Reddish's life that are unsourced, even within the sources discussed here. He could have drawn from other interviews, or interviewed Reddish's friends, family, collaborators, etc. Another article at The Daily Journal mentions a speaking engagement and Reddish's two novels and cites nothing from the author personally. Reddish's essay for The Advocate establishs him a writer for a major publication, and if you examine the full article which mentions his novel, it places it in a greater context as a work as noteworthy as major music, film and television entries. It does not appear that Reddish personally had anything to do with his mention of his novel in The Advocate, nor did he write or coerce his name into Bent-Con programming or publicity. User:Froggie19Dude|Froggie19Dude]] (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Upon reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines for notablility and sourching, the reviews from websites MyTakeOnTV.com and PinkisthenewBlog.com should be acceptable under Wiki guidlines since both Courtney K. and Trent Vanegas exert full editorial control over their content. Wikipedia rules state that opinion blogs are unreliable regarding opinions of people, but not their work. Moreover, the previously discussed article at gay.net qualifies as WP:SECONDARY because, while it does interpolate original research in the form of an interview, the preceeding paragraph is a review of the novel not based on anything said in the interview itself. Thus, the cited sources of The Daily Journal, MyTakeonTV.com, Bent-Con.org, PinkistheNewBlog.com, gay.net and The Advocate should all be permissable under Wiki guidelines because they are independent, edited sources providing significant coverage or attestation to the notability of Reddish and his work. Also, having reviewed Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, both The Daily Journal article and the Gay.net article qualify as sources: Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis. Ergo, even if an interview appears as part of the article, if it is merged with original writing, and in this case, both articles are, it qualifies as WP: SECONDARY. In terms of notability, we have discussed significant coverage here, including independent and reliable sources that would suggest Reddish, his novel Sex, Drugs & Superheroes or come combined entry of the two should be included here.Froggie19Dude (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - That's a long and winding path to trying to establish those sources as acceptable. For me, they are very marginal at best. I'm not swayed from my position. -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Apologies for my long windedness, (Why can't I add a smiley face here?!) but I'm trying to address each specific concern in order to be most productive. Which points are you unsold on regarding the validity of the sources we're discussing? Perhaps we can find an understanding that way.Froggie19Dude (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - BENTCON as a reliable source; nope, absolutely not a reliable source nor notability. Blogs, very very marginal in this case. Daily Journal is a local paper covering a local interest story; usable as supplementary sourcing for notabilty, but not as one of the primary sources for notability. When judging notability, editors need to look at the number and quality of sources to come to their conclusion. For me, what has been presented falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom; no significant third-party WP:RScoverage whatsoever to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With respect Jamie, how are mainstream publications like The Daily Journal or The Advocate not considered third party?Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Having one "open letter" editorial published does not make one notable. WP:BIO notability requires significant coverage about the subject. One article in a newspaper with a circulation of 22,000 about a local also not enough either. Per WP:COI, please find another venue to promote yourself and your book.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Reddish's work has also been noted in The Advocate and as far as I know, there is nothing in Wiki regulations that says a newspaper has to have a certain circulation level to be considered a reliable source--that also ignores the existance of the Journal website, and says nothing of how many readers access it. Moreover, that overlooks the incidental or in-depth coverage provided by other sources of varying degree. Furthermore, please refrain from personal attacks; Reddish and I are not the same person, and to imply as much is an insult to him and to his defenders like myself.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facebook, Amazon, and blogs do not contribute to notability. Neither does writing an editorial. That leaves a local newspaper article, which is not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 16 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 speedily deleted by User:The JPS per CSD A9 (non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blur (extended Play)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable music recording that has not even been released. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. The artist's page was just speedied per A7. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Nuw Crawford[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No prima facie evidence of notability in the article (assuming "entrepreneur", "inventor", and "actor" don't automatically imply that they've achieved any significance in those areas). Almost no Google hits. Creator of non-notable websites. I submitted for speedy (and it had been speedily deleted shortly before being recreated) but another editor disagreed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of this satisfies WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are claims of notability, these claims may be exaggerated and may not meet WP:GNG but they are there. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any conclusive discussions as to what "significance" means? I've been thinking of it as meaning a reason why one might even think there'd be an article on the topic. Personally, I don't consider "is an actor" any more a claim of significance than "is a lawyer" (really, even if one happens to have been on the screen, I resent that one thinks oneself more significant than I based solely on that fact), and I don't see starting a website as a sign of significance. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is are his roles enough to pass WP:ENT. To say in a deletion discussion that there are "no claims to notability" is disingenuous. The article may fail notability guidelines and possibly be deleted, but let's be clear on why. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. His body of work as an actor falls well short of what we would normally see for a notable actor, or producer. There is no evidence that is endeavors as an entrepeneur / inventor have been noted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 15 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 keep: the nomination was withdrawn and no other users endorsed deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living Word Fellowship[edit]

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

The article (although a source is included) does not assert the notability of its subject, which is described as "a Christian group" without telling us why this particular group is different from any other group of people. Borock (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this stub several years ago, mainly for the purpose of disambiguation from The Living Word Fellowship. I didn't know enough about the group (or the general subject) to write a decent article about it, but this group appeared to be notable. I still believe the group is notable as an examplar of the Jesus movement that was studied and documented as such (by academic researcher Steven M. Tipton) and has been referred to in numerous other publications, apparently due in large part to Tipton's research. I hoped someone with more knowledge of the subject would expand the article, but subsequent editing only made it slightly shorter. After seeing this AFD, I expanded the article a little and added inline citations. That should be sufficient to show notability; maybe now someone else with greater understanding of the subject will expand it further. Note: The article is written in the past tense; I haven't determined whether the LWF is still active. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks Gene. You've established its notability, especially since it was the subject of a (well, one third of a) scholarly book. Borock (talk) 21:40, 13 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 keep. Multiple sources available to prove notability, no reason to keep this discussion open further. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liang Jie[edit]

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

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

Subject is not notable. All of the references contain no content about the subject. AlanS (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability threshold. Two sources added - one an in-depth tech bio across four pages of a book, the other an interview with a major software technology website (Alexa ranking 8,730). Other Chinese sources have significant coverage while the Alibaba/UCWeb deal was the Chinese equivalent of the Google/YouTube tie up. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is not for UCWeb. This nomination is for an un-notable individual as per WP:NRV. AlanS (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I realise that, which is why my comments refer to the individual. He's not quite Jack Dorsey but the closest thing China has to him. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plentiful business sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 16 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 keep. Multiple sources available to prove notability, no reason to keep this discussion open further. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He Xiaopeng[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. All of the references contain no content about the subject. AlanS (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources [19] [20] [21] [22]--180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability threshold. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One further reference added to article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is not for UCWeb or UC Browser. This nomination is for an un-notable individual as per WP:NRV. Working in a notable organisation that develops a notable product does not make an individual notable. AlanS (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but having a detailed biography published in a book and significant coverage as an individual right across the Chinese Internet does. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant number of business sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:19, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amitkumar Prajapati[edit]

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

This is an unsourced autobiography. It was already speedy deleted, but was recreated by the author/subject. The person is not Notable, there are no reliable sources. It is hard to search for sources since there are many people with the same name. Article claims that he is the owner of the "Indian Classified Business Portal", but when searching for that portal, Google search returns no hits [23]. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The article reads like bad machine translation. Even if there were sources demonstrating notability, we'd probably have to blow it up and start over. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Msnicki (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly is not notable, the article is poorly written, and is likely promotional. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia bans autobiographies for very good reasons. That alone should get such articles deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks appropriate for Linked-In; it is more or less a resume.Jacona (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion by a non-notable person, using a single-purpose account. Also wins my award of the week for worst use of the English language! RomanSpa (talk) 09:38, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kylian Hazard[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, having not received significant coverage independently of his brothers, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator because he has played in the Belgian Second Division, and based on a claim that he had received significant coverage. The claim that the Belgian Second Division is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources (see WP:FPL), and the coverage he has received is routine. All the sources listed are either transfer announcements or speculation, player profiles, or deal with his family and not him specifically. The fact that transfer announcements and speculation do not amount to significant coverage is a long established consensus, and WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes trivial coverage includ[ing] listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion. (Also, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source.) The sources about his family do not confer notability since it cannot inherited. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 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 to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kylian Hazard is playing for Zulte-Waregem, which is a Jupiler Pro League club (Belgian 1st division). This league is "fully pro", so the article should definitely not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that he hasn't actually played for the club yet in a fully pro match, so he fails NFOOTY as stated above. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Benteke[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator because he has played in the Belgian Second Division, and based on a claim that he had received significant coverage. The claim that the Belgian Second Division is fully pro is not supported by reliable sources (see WP:FPL), and the coverage he has received is routine. Three of the sources listed are transfer announcements, the non-significance of which is a long-standing consensus. The other two are player profiles which WP:NSPORT explicitly states to be trivial, not to mention the fact that Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 13 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 to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 15 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 Speedied (but not by me...). Peridon (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond diet[edit]

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

Only references are for creators of the diet. AlanS (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a speedy tag for promo on it, but I'm leaving it. I can't see any reliable independent sources in 10 pages of ghits (all that came up despite an initial mention of 629,000...). Not all of them were about this outfit, mind you. The Huffington Post one that came up wasn't about The Beyond Diet, but simple contained the words 'beyond diet and exercise', and there appear to be others similar. Interestingly, I did find two sites apparently dedicated to explaining that the Beyond Diet isn't a scam or fraud. One seemed to be malformed and looked a bit odd, but the other was clear and went on at length. Not a WP:RS, though. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was unsure whether to slap a CSD G11 on it or not so I put it here. Looks like someone slapped the speedy on it after I'd nominated it here. AlanS (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite certain that the intention is promotion rather than the altruistic saving of humanity's waistlines, but the wording isn't promo enough for me. However, others may disagree... Peridon (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I didn't put a speedy on it. AlanS (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's now been speedied. AlanS (talk) 19:19, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intimate and Acoustic[edit]

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

This page is an example of WP:Advertising a promotional page about a new "Intimate and Acoustic" tour that is self sourced by a user that has only contributed to this type of promo page. Intimate and Acoustic is a tour series that has included many other artists. Perhaps merge with the Alanis Morissette page, it does not belong here.talk→ WPPilot 01:17, 28 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) 04:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertisement of a future commercial activity. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCONCERT TOUR at this time. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to the artist's page if/when it's mentioned there. Gongshow talk 21:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern with a redirect is that "Intimate and Acoustic" is a tour that is upon itself notable, in that many artists have preformed in "Intimate and Acoustic" tours. If we redirect this, then it assigns what could well be a copyrighted event, to Alanis Morissette. talk→ WPPilot 03:18, 16 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viapath[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable Wayne Jayes 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viapath is the best documented example I have found of a very significant phenomenon - the hiving off of pathology from NHS Trusts into commercial organisations. We need the WikiProject National Health Service to cover the development of privatisation. I was planning to produce more articles on other similar enterprises. Viapath runs 60 laboratories and provides pathology services for several million people. It has an annual income of £93 million, employs 1000 people and conducted more than 22 million pathology tests in 2013. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 27 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) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Pathology laboratories do not usually receive much (read:any) coverage, but the sources provided in the article suggest this one might be more notable than most. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 7 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy (band)[edit]

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

Not notable band, fails WP:GNG. Should also include their album, listed below.

Semilla del Tiempo Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 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) 04:36, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to lack notability, at least in an English-speaking context.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:17, 13 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. Soft delete due to lack of participation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Hills Hyderabad[edit]

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

This AfD is after a contested PROD. The article is about a "real-estate" project that seems to have attracted loads of temporary media coverage due to temporary (2010) controversy. The article is not very encyclopedic, and reads more like a news article. Notability is not temporary, and this article seems to fail that. Corruption in real estate developments is now so common globally that it is hardly notable, and generally only covered by local sources. The whole overarching topic of corruption in real estate developments may be notable as a whole, but I can hardly see a situation where one specific one would be itself. TLSuda (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 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) 04:38, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuraman digital intermediate colourist[edit]

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

This article is pure self promotion, acting a CV for a non-notable person, and is not appropriate for an encylopaedia. I do not think removal of unencyclopaedic content and links will leave any justifiable content. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article was also subject to a delete or speedy delete in the past and has been recreated, but I don't have appropriate rights to see if i'm correct. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article which is likely to be an autobiography by User:Colourraghu, whose user page redirects to the article. The article is basically just a list of work done; if there is any notability it would be in the 2013 Kerala Govt Film Award: "...and Raghu Raman (best colourist)." In the all-shall-have-prizes of industry awards I don't think that suffices for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:03, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Was Way Cool (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book of poems -- really, song lyrics transcribed by lead singer. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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 decker ^talk 15:44, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is not notable. Shabratha (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- In seeking sources for this article, I failed to find any meaningful coverage by secondary sources. I found [one interview] of the author that mentions his work but does not go into about this particular book or any of the poems therein. In short, the subject fails notability guidelines as the book has not achieved sufficient coverage. Mrathel (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as fails our book notability guidelines. RomanSpa (talk) 09:39, 16 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 ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Sajwan[edit]

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

Has only one reference, almost all of the information are unreferenced and may not be true. — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} 13:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 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 decker ^talk 15:44, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:09, 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 delete. I don't see a consensus to redirect after this deletion, but if an editor thinks a fresh redirect is warranted, I would leave that to them. If it gets recreated again, you can ask for salt with your CSD#G4 Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall[edit]

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

Completing AfD listing by IP editor, who wrote, "NN shopping mall. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sierra_Vista_Mall_(3rd_nomination).--180.172.239.231 (talk) 8:39 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)" -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is a Sierra Vista mall in Bisbee, Arizona, 672 miles from this mall. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Clovis, CA with template R with possibilities, retain talk page, userfy on request with full edit history. WP:BEFORE D1 shows a 200-page scholarly book about this mall. Here is 3-sentence coverage by the AP carried in Fredericksburg, VA:

Marybeth Nibley, AP Business Writer (November 25, 1989). "Customers cram into stores, malls". The Free Lance-Star. Fredericsburg, VA. Retrieved 2014-07-13. Thousands stopped by the 59-store Sierra Vista Mall in Clovis, Calif., {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

The primary source shows the topic to have 78 acres, which puts it up into the super-regional mall category, where there is no real doubt of wp:notability, and any lingering doubt is resolved by WP:BEFORE D1. The article appears to be credible, but without readers being able to verify that the material comes from a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Material has been removed from this article subsequent to the start of the AfD. Here is a link to the article at the time of the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Can't find anything more than passing mentions. No significant coverage in Google Books or ProQuest but the passing mentions to be expected from the American institution that serves the role of community center. I can't find any dedicated articles or even that 200-page book (there is one in the deletion review about malls in general, but that's 240 pages). Moreover, this is the fifth unique AfD for this topic and the sourcing has not become more robust over time: time for salt. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 15:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a building, and it happens to have several stores in it. Notability is not asserted. Reywas92^Talk 02:43, 21 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 ♔ 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Westervelt[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable director, fails WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 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 decker ^talk 16:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it does fail WP:ARTIST, it just barely passes WP:BASIC, as two published reliable sources in the article mention him in a non-trivial way. --Holdek (talk) 16:27, 4 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to Swedish Football Division 5. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilla Torg FF[edit]

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

Seems to fail critarias according to WP:FOOTYN, as Sweden have a cup system. There are no claims supporting notability in the article. PROD did fail. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Football Division 5 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per GS. I contested the prod as the team have played in the fourth tier of swedish football. However, thinking about it, this is a regional level of league competition and I can find no evidence that they have competed in the national rounds of the swedish cup, so probably fail WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 16 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 incubate. There appears to be pretty solid consensus that this does not meet WP:N with the current state of sourcing, but there is promise that better sources may emerge. So, moving this to Draft:George Hastings (Manitoba politician) where it can be worked on, and possibly brought back to main article space if better sourcing emerges. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Hastings (Manitoba politician)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of a political party, and then trying to undermine the leadership of the person who beat him. No substantive evidence that he passes WP:POLITICIAN, and not enough sourcing to invoke the WP:GNG loophole. Delete (or incubate per Serialjoepsycho in case salvageability is possible with some active research effort?) Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou didn't really give to good of a summary. He started to undermine the leadership of a person then ran against him. A war time Coalition Government was formed for the province in 1940. This of course was during World War 2 which ended in 1945. After the war ended the coalition continued. In 1949 he and another individual founded the Manitoba Democratic Movement with the stated purpose of ending the coalition. They successfully accomplished this in mid 1950. In October, after all that happened he ran against Willis. Not befor. Creating an organization that ends a decade of politics certainly seems notable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a claim that gets a person past WP:POLITICIAN, no — and more importantly it isn't very well sourced, containing only one insufficiently vague citation which only supports the fact that he served as leader of a local riding association after the whole thing which you're claiming makes him notable was over (leaders of local riding associations are not notable), one external link to a historical essay in a middling source that isn't enough to confer notability if it's the only substantive source that can be cited (it would be valid for additional verification of facts after his notability had been covered off by better sourcing, but cannot confer notability by itself), and one external link to his obituary (which is not a source that confers notability at all). Even if anything here did actually pass a notability guideline, it's not the mere assertion of significance that gets a person past our notability rules — it's the quality of reliable sourcing that can be cited to support the assertion, and the quality of the sourcing here is for bird droppings. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current sourcing is not reason for deletion. I didn't make the claim that he met wp:politician. I suggested he may have met the primary criterion of notability. I'm not sure. There aren't enough sources on the page to be sure. All I can note is my perception that you have made no effort towards verification. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary criterion of notability (a/k/a WP:GNG) requires sourcing too. And your perception that I "have made no effort towards verification" is simply wrong. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As secretary of the Manitoba Democratic Movement and a political figure of the 1950s (i.e. a historical figure rather than a contemporary politician), I hope that GNG is observed rather than the Special Notability high bar that we have for politicians in order to stop self-serving blather and campaign spam. That said, I'm not seeing a lot in a cursory Google search. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG still requires sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I could find was behind a pay wall. I'd check the archives of the specific news paper sourced in the article. Probaly also the Manitoba Historical society.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Manitoba Historical Society is not a source that can adequately confer notability on a person. It's acceptable for additional verification of facts after enough other sourcing has been added to get a person past GNG, but it can't itself get a person past GNG if it is the article's principal or sole source. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba History: The Journal of the Manitoba Historical Society would certainly meet that criteria. The Winnipeg free press would as well. But then I was actually suggesting searching MHS for other resources. You may be able to contact them and they could direct you to the apropriate sources. You might also consider the Archives of Manitoba. Googling for a few seconds doesn't seem to me to be a thorough attempt verification. The current content as written does suggest notability. However yes verification is required. I do feel though that it would be important to make a thorough attempt at verification. With that I can not suggest deletion. What I would propose is that we put this article under Incubation per WP:ATD-I. That will give it a chance to be improved and verified. And then after a time if that does not happen it can then be deleted.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I could accept that as an alternative too. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 27 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 20:47, 4 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was to close this as no consensus but I wanted to check on the feet dragging. I seemingly found no hits in LEXISNEXIS, ProQuest, and Google Books. I'm going with non-notable right now, though I'd be willing to entertain those paywall links from @Serialjoepsycho if they can be posted. Until then, I'm inclined to think the sourcing isn't robust enough to support an article. Please ping me if more sources (esp. non-English or offline) are posted. czar ♔ 15:04, 19 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. I'm a little conflicted by this. On the one hand, there appears to be a hint of a delete consensus here, but on the other hand, the two previous admins who touched this saw fit to relist, and the only thing that's happened since then is an argument to keep, so I'm just going to call this NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Pershey[edit]

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

I sent the article for the drummer to AFD two years ago, there was no consensus based on him being part of two bands. I think enough time has passed to review this. The problem is that the bands are likely not notable either, so to simplify, I'm putting all in one AFD. In short, there isn't enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. A few mentions, but all four of these depend on each other for notability, which kind of violates our idea that notability isn't inherited. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles included in this AFD:
White Lightning (band) - Not notable band. They do have two mentions, one in a paper, one in Billboard Magazine, but these don't fulfill the requirements of WP:SIGCOV, thus they fail WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest dropping Trilogy (band) (and their album) from this afd and starting a new one for them. That Trilogy seems unrelated to Pershey's Trilogy. They should be judged separately. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernie Pershey to White Lightning (band). The second band does not appear notable. No comment (yet) on White Lightning but Persheys claim to notability that he was part of two notable bands is fundamentally flawed. There is no indication of notability for his second band, Trilogy. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have redirected instead of AFD if I had any indication that the band was notable, but they (like most of the era) didn't catch on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did remove the two, per suggestion, as they do appear unrelated. They do seem to need their own AFD but it should be separate. Regardless, both of the two remaining articles still fail notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:28, 27 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 20:52, 4 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep White Lightning, delete Bernie Pershey. I admit I'm giving somewhat of a benefit of the doubt to a 60s-era regional act whose reliable sources aren't going to be as easy to find as those on, say, Katy Perry. They do seem to pass WP:BAND as having had two major album releases. Bernie Pershey appears to be mostly a touring musician and while that's great work and I bet he has some awesome stories such musicians tend not to have the substantial coverage by reliable sources for a BLP article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that White Lightning was a less popular spin off band from The Litter, which has its own notability concerns. Maybe that will help find sources, but I'm not hopeful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 13 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badajoz UFO incident[edit]

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

No WP:FRIND sources available except for the cited Pravda report which is essentially a Weekly World News tabloid these days and fails our reliability sniff test. See also WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source added to this 1976 story is about a totally different affair that happened in 1965. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This incident is not notable, only a handful of fringe sources mention it. Nothing reliable to establish notability. Goblin Face (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:REDFLAG. Considering the extreme claims being made by the article, the two iffy sources being cited don't satisfy the encyclopedia's requirements or warrant a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a Roswell; coverage in List of UFO sightings would be enough. Logos5557 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing user/admin You might consider merging the summarized version into the List of UFO sightings, turning the page into redirect (to the list of ufo sightings) and protecting (to prevent recreation). Logos5557 (talk) 21:19, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirassol UFO incident[edit]

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

No WP:FRIND sources available to establish notability. jps (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just spent some time looking, can't find any reliable references for this incident. This is a definite deletion. Goblin Face (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than a mention in a book by Jerome Clark, there's nothing to indicate this story rises to the level of notability for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage outside of the expected fringe UFO literature. I don't think mainstream coverage is asking too much. If it doesn't make an impression on the mainstream press, then it's probably not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even listed in List of UFO sightings. Logos5557 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing user/admin You might consider merging the summarized version into the List of UFO sightings, turning the page into redirect (to the list of ufo sightings) and protecting (to prevent recreation). Logos5557 (talk) 21:20, 18 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Galpin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any WP:RS confirming his appearances for Amiens, so likely he didn't make any - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:27, 13 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 to satisfy GNG.
Delete - Non-notable football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline of WP:NFOOTBALL, having never played for his national team in an international match, nor in a game in a fully professional league. Fails the general notability guidelines because of a failure to generate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 15 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 per WP:CSD#A3: no content. Please work on drafts in your userspace first if you need to take time to set up tables and other formatting before adding content. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in El Salvador[edit]

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

This is a page with nothing. Their is a expansion/major restructuring tag on the page but their has been know edits for three days. NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 11:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebStory Engine[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I can find no independent sources that cover the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 11:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 11:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find evidence of it having received any substantial coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:33, 19 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. Withdrawn due to target mix-up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bullen[edit]

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

Per OTRS#2014070710000993, ~~the subject of the article has requested deletion. He contests that:~~

the article contains false information (no specifics given)

he has not given permission for his name to be used on Wikipedia

~~Posting this at his request~~ see below, no comment with regards to deletion or retention. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor figure who lacks indepth coverage. The reasons given above though do not amount to reasons to delete. Wikipedia does not need a subjects permission to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/NC without prejudice to renomination based on the new information from Yunshui. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Comment It is a bit odd that this request originates from a person who is still linking to their Wikipedia biography on their official web site. [24] I lean delete *if* the request is genuine and not in error, while I think this person may meet our notability guidelines, I do not believe them to be so notable as to not be discretion zone for removal of biographies of living people on request by the subject. I agree with JPL, that we do not require permission for biographies on Wikipedia, and that false information is handled under our policies almost universally by normal editing, but I do think notability here is marginal. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note It appears that the OTRS requestor may actually have been referring to this userpage - which refers to a different individual with the same name - rather than the article. I have asked them for clarification. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely referring to the userpage, which I've now deleted. Since there is already a Delete !vote above this discussion cannot be speedily closed, however I think it's fair to say that the nominator has withdrawn their request for deletion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:36, 14 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 Village People. Clear consensus that a standalone article is not appropriate, but two editors favoured a redirect, to which there are no objections expressed. Michig (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Perrelli[edit]

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

I have added two sources to the bio. Apart from a short stint in 2013 as a stand-in for G. Jeff Olson, who himself is/was merely a temp performer in the Village People act, I don't find anything that makes Perelli notable. Currently he is mentioned in the VP article, to where I suggest we redirect him. Sam ^Sing! 09:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 09:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect I see some coverage about his death, but mostly on blogs and twitter. Others are passing references. --Auric talk 13:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor stand-in performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability requirements. BMK (talk) 01:19, 17 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 as a blatant hoax per WP:G3. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shui Feng[edit]

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

A7 G3, need some help from someone literate in Chinese to see if this is actually real Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a badly-written hoax. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Alleged Chinese name is just feng shui. Chinese Wikipedia does not have an article on any author by this name. Reads like someone used Google Translate to make up Chinese-language quotes, particularly "你們是我寫故事的原因" (allegedly said to her husband, but uses the plural form of you). quant18 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obviously a hoax. I would have tagged it myself, but an IP already did so. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Tsintsadze[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and subject has not played in a fully pro league.Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:49, 13 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 to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:54, 15 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PiFi[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Google searches turned up nothing but press releases. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm seeing one mobilitytechzone review and that's about it. Not sufficient for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I only finding the same mobilitytechzone review and nothing else beyond a one line mention in a non-notable online blog about a convention the parent company attended, aand a failed indiegogo campaign page. JTdale ^Talk 15:27, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Rivalry (Park vs Horlick)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable high school football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This article has ten referenced footnoted sources; eight of the ten, however, are from the same hometown newspaper, The Journal-Times; all eight of them count as one source, and most of them are WP:ROUTINE game coverage. The ninth source is a book published by one of the two high schools, which means it is not independent of the subject, and cannot be counted for purposes of establishing notability. The tenth source is the Milwaukee Journal, but the article is primarily about the 75th anniversary of one of the high schools, and includes only an incidental (i.e. not significant) mention of the rivalry itself. Bottom line: the rivalry fails the general notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Dirtlawyer1 Robertvincentswain (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good rivalry where I am, but in the larger scheme only of regional interest. Nate • (chatter) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embarrassing that this made it through one AFD already... Try another wiki. --Paul McDonald (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms spot on analysis. –Davey2010 • (talk)
Delete Per nomination. Obviously fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:48, 13 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. Promotional and non-notable individual. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj bisrakhwasi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. There is no coverage by reliable sources, therefore the article does not meet the WP:GNG. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable with a strong smell of self promotion. No reliable source coverage found in searches. All "references" in the article are self-published complete with a citation to a two-day-old IMDb user page. No credible assertion of notability shown. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill public relations person. These always are suspect as self promotion, that is the whole point of public relations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11 unambiguous promotion of a non-notable individual. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:42, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric E. Evans[edit]

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

Non-notable college football player who fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Subject received routine game coverage as an athlete at the University of Florida, but received no major awards to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. The subject purportedly played for the Augusta Stallions of Af2, but an appearance in a regular season game in the junior arena league does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON -- and it's unclear if he ever played. Complete lack of significant coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE for high school, college and Af2 means the subject also fails the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After multiple searches, in various databases, I find no meaningful coverage of Cedric Smith in mainstream media sources or books. Nor have I found any confirmation he actually played in the professional game. Willing to reconsider if additional sources turn up. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with nominator. I am unable to find any indication of awards at the college level that would make him a notable college athlete. As a professional football player, he was signed to an AF2 team, but I can find no evidence he ever even played a game. And even if he did, the AF2 is a developmental league so notability under WP:NGRIDIRON would not be met. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 15 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.