Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 July 16 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. Of note is that the article has been heavily sourced compared to the time it was nominated for deletion, at which time it was unsourced. Discussion regarding the article can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014[edit]

List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP being used to work around the consensus that being a Playboy Playmate is not notable. The entries of this list are already part of List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace, and List of people in Playboy 2010–19. (Depending upon how this discussion goes, the other "List of Playboy Playmates of (YEAR)" articles may be considered for deletion as well.) Ronz (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These pages present information that isn't available in the others. Not only are there many photos for identification purposes but there is also the data from the Playmate Data Sheets which is presented in the infoboxes. This data has been used in at least three different studies. (okay, the last one is a 404 now but trust me that it was there) A search just now found this which seems to be referring to the first study I mentioned though I can't access it right now due to content filters at my employer. That said, this seems to be talking about the same study where Playmate figures were compared with social and economic conditions. Then there's this which is another reference to that study. My point is that these figures are used in legitimate studies of socioeconomic factors. And those studies are republished in various journals. Whatever you think of the lists, the data has a use to the sociological and economic communities. Dismas|(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't keep articles simply because they have information not in others. Nor does the observation that some of the information has been used elsewhere make a case for including it. We do have WP:BLP to follow instead. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What does BLP have to do with whether this should be kept? postdlf (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything. Currently, the article has no sources at all. We could delete all the content, but then it would be redundant with the multiple lists already mentioned. I think we should just go ahead and delete it and save some work. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand if you're not familiar with the subject matter, but the Playboy issues themselves give this information about the models they hire and promote as Playmates. So when a model is identified as the Playmate for March 2014, the issue of Playboy with a March 2014 cover date is the source. So please try again. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So the article exists to promote Playboy? --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a different question, the posing of which at this point I can only assume means you've dropped "BLP!" as some kind of relevant deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume incorrectly. The article was created to get around WP:BIO, it is unsourced, and sourced implicitly by Playboy - that's an advertisment. So let's add WP:SOAP to the list of problems.
    How about making your own statement, since we're very far from Dismas' rationale of the information has uses? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ronz, you're honestly not presenting yourself well here. You're now equivocating notability guidelines (WP:BIO) with BLP, as there is there is no substantive deletion argument based on BLP. And you're continuing to incorrectly (and irrelevantly) assert that the information is unsourced (significantly, not that it's unverifiable, which is an actual deletion rationale). And no, the article was not created to "get around" BIO, as merger to such lists was frequently the result of AFD consensus on the express understanding that most did not satisfy GNG individually. The log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 9 alone contains at least a dozen AFDs for individual playmates closed as "redirect" to the lists by year. Accusing the editors of this list of trying to "get around" a guideline is therefore not only a failure to assume good faith but blatantly incorrect. I'll give a comment on the merits below, but I simply can't tolerate this kind of careless argumentation in an AFD. Try harder. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:FOC. I had hoped we'd have editors experienced with AfDs, especially where WP:BLP and lists are concerned, responding. My own inclination is to avoid AfD discussions, hence the years since I originally saw the problem.
    The articles, the yearly lists, were created to get around WP:BIO. Do we need to document it step by step? This specific article is just more of the same. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is sometimes not enough reason to justify having twelve articles for all the Playmates so a list page is the simplest way to keep all the information about the Playmates in one place without having twelve (or 12 x 60) articles created and deleted.
While the information might be duplicated in other articles related to the magazine the lists about the Playmates are the only place the information is collated in this manner (it may be wise to remove Playmates from the more general list that covers everyone who has appeared in the magazine, though again at List of people in Playboy 2010–19 the links to most of the Playmates link back to the list articles, the same is true of List of Playboy Playmates by birthplace).
Compressing all of a decade into one list would make them impractically large, which is why they currently appear in smaller lists.
If you want policy then BLP isn't a real problem (there are multiple sources confirming who the Playmates for each month are) and the title of Playmate is notable enough that the more famous Playmates are identified by that moniker on other wikipages. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, so what you're saying is that the extra info (unsourced, sourced implicitly by Playboy), is why it should be kept, or is there more to it? --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Comment (maybe a weak keep).[changed to full keep for reasons given throughout this discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)] As I note above, these Playmate lists by year were created as a place to merge the individual articles on Playmates who were judged not notable. Repeated AFDs closed with this result, and many of the AFD !voters clearly relied on merger being a possibility. Consensus can change, but this was a very well established one. So that alone gives me concern about deleting these lists in favor of bare lists of names.[reply]

    On the notability issue, there is no requirement that individual list entries or merged content merit standalone articles. This makes them the equivalent of character lists for works of fiction as far as notability is concerned. WP:SOAP is, in my opinion, not a serious deletion argument here, any more than it is for any list derived from a mass media commercial property that is unquestionably notable. What constitutes an appropriate level of detail for such a topic is instead a question of editing judgment that falls far short of accusations of "promotion".

    And that brings me to the one thought I have on the deletion side: Playboy's cultural footprint and relevance has dramatically declined over the years. There was a time when every Playmate was a kind of minor celebrity, and if you go back enough years a greater and greater percentage of them will even merit individual articles because it was often a jumping off point to other things. See, e.g., Pamela Anderson, Jenny McCarthy... But have there been many such examples since the 1990s, and do they regularly get any third-party media attention now even as Playmates?

    So I question the extent to which 2014 is still that time such that it is at all informationally useful to continue to name and identify them in this manner. One consequence of that line of thinking is I think the nominator is completely wrong in assuming that deletion of this list, should it occur, necessarily has any significance for the other years' lists. Perhaps someone can come up with a reasonably objective way to draw a line (say, lists after 2000 are more questionable than those before) but I don't know the basis right now on which that could be done. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good points all. Thank you.
    Yes, I think we should discuss the notability issues in some depth. While the individuals are not notable, Playboy and Playboy Playmate are notable. Maybe we should be clear how WP:LISTN is met (or maybe it might not be for 2014 and other recent years given Postdlf's comments)? Is it then appropriate to include information about each and every one from the viewpoint of Playboy when there are no other viewpoints? It certainly helps promote the interests of Playboy and all those whose interests are aligned with Playboy. But what encyclopedic value are we providing? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Playmates unquestionably pass WP:LISTN as a group. The splitting of the lists into year is just for convenience sake and doesn't change that analysis (and if it somehow did, then it would be easily avoided by merging all the yearly lists into one massive list so as to make it one group of all Playmates, so asking whether "2014 Playmates" passes LISTN independently of Playmates as a whole is not a fruitful or meaningful approach). On "viewpoint," I don't see how that's involved at all if we're not repeating POV puffery (such as "Playboy says Miss March is the sexiest Brunette in the Four Corners region"); it's the same as when we rely on primary sources in other contexts for a basic description, such as lists of TV episodes. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Playmates pass WP:LISTN, though I don't know what encyclopedic value they provide, especially when there are so very many different lists.
    It may not be blatant puffery, but it is Playboy's viewpoint.
    We've some policies about the use of primary sources, and they say in general that articles sourced only with such sources aren't encyclopedic. They are much more restrictive when it comes to BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the problem: if it is encyclopedic to list them from 1953 to some unspecified year, but not necessarily after that unspecified year, how do we determine what year is the dividing line? Beyond that, I still have no clue what you see as a "viewpoint" here, and you continue to WP:VAGUEWAVE to BLP without rhyme or reason. Just because content is about living people does not make it easier to delete, and here the primary source issue is irrelevant to BLP concerns given that the material is all factual, not contentious, and (just as it would be if the primary source were self-published by the subject) the subjects' involvement with the primary source here is by their consent and own initiative. It would be like claiming that the birthplace of an American Idol contestant raised a BLP "concern" just because it was sourced to the American Idol official website. Which would be nonsense. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:FOC. I hope I've made a clearer case below [1]. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm focusing on the content of your arguments. That's what we do at AFD. If you don't want your arguments criticized, then this isn't the forum for you. And your comment below doesn't make a case at all, let alone a "clearer" one. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "then this isn't the forum for you" Sorry to have upset you so that you're now over the line into WP:BATTLE. Please stop. Cooperate. Ask questions and try to understand others. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I believe that the subject technically satisfies the notability guidelines of WP:LISTN, but I, like others above, cannot help but wonder about the "encyclopedic value" of such lists. Notability is only the first hurdle for inclusion of a stand-alone article in Wikipedia, and the day may come when we begin to question whether the inclusion of centerfolds and minor porn starlets based on industry insider publications should be based on an objective standard of minimum notability and/or something else. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reduce to a true list article: Should this be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists? As a list this article fails WP:N (the list and many individual entries), WP:LSC, and WP:LISTN. This is a Subheading-structured (stand alone) list of specific people. The creation of a list article is still subject to Wikipedia:Notability (people). "WP:LISTN states that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". What independent (let alone reliable) sources? Has anyone seen this list; List of people in Playboy 2010–19. The section "2014" contains the names of the 2014 playmates and one of the "lists" are redundant. All of the playmate links in the list links to to other lists and not to articles. This is the circular pattern all of the list conform to. We should either have policies and guidelines to build a better encyclopedia or forget about them. Otr500 (talk)
  • Added Comment: Just the idea that some argue that this list does not try to go around notability is utterly amazing. It was commented above, "There is sometimes not enough reason to justify having twelve articles for all the Playmates so a list page is the simplest way to keep all the information about the Playmates in one place without having twelve (or 12 x 60) articles created and deleted." This is a standard argument and justification for inclusion is that it is a list so contents can be allowed. If we can't create an article because of lack of notability (the reason) we create a list with the information included and justify the list? This is either a list or an article. If it is a list (as it is presented to be) then reduce it to conform to that. If it is an article (as it currently it actually is) then change the name. As a list it is redundant other than the fact it contains information on non-notable people that some editors want to keep. Otr500 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like it or not, lists often have non-notable entries, and AFDs are routinely closed as merge and redirect to such lists as has happened with many Playmate articles (and such lists of individually non-notable entries are routinely kept at AFD). You cite to WP:LSC though without apparently reading the section right below it: WP:CSC, "common [list] selection criteria", which gives one example as "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles." So you're railing against what is common, guideline-supported, and consensus-supported practice, yet you're trying to characterize it as if it was somehow a sneaky trick. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems WP:DP hasn't kept up with BLP. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE places the burden on restoring content in BLPs to those arguing for inclusion. WP:BLPDEL clarifies this. In the specific case of this article, I'd say that arguments about the value of the information in the article fail anything like WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Of course we could push the issue by just deleting the content, but that might interfere with this AfD too much. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't get to delete something just because you've exclaimed "BLP!" BLPREQUESTRESTORE has no applicability here as we're not taking about deletions pursuant to a subject's request. BLPDEL makes clear that it is only applicable to content that is noncompliant, about which there is not a consensus here, let alone a substantive argument that it isn't compliant. And consistent with WP:PRESERVE, that the content "should be improved and rectified" if possible, though that presumes there is a substantive issue of noncompliance to rectify in the first place. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we're having trouble communicating. I hope that the editing, edit summaries, and talk page comments will help clarify the problems that need to be overcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Postdlf, do not characterize my comments in the way you did. Slapping labels and using unfounded accusations, that are not conducive to a productive discussion, is not cool. I have pointed out what I see. I asked a question (the ? mark) "If we can't create an article because of lack of notability (the reason) we create a list with the information included and justify the list?" and you affirmed this with "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", Your reasoning is not the intended purpose of list articles. Policies, guidelines, and even essays, are suppose to be used together and if there is doubt, or some conflict, it is be better to swing to the side of preserving the integrity of Wikipedia.
Read even farther below WP:CSC. WP:LISTPEOPLE (about people) includes a notability requirement, with an exception if famous for a specific event and I am sure a Playmate does not qualify on that count. It also states that inclusion depends on "...if all the following requirements are met.". If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E", and "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.". If we are getting into the BLP or bio aspect of individual listings within the lists then we can add that also as the above "does" provide a criteria for individual entries of persons. I think it is sad that these entries have been allowed to remain this long. As far as "noncompliant" there is no question that bio entries with only a primary source should not be allowed and some of these articles have no references, are orphans, listing only external links as a source, and some like (List of Playboy Playmates of 1984) have like 24 listings in 12 "separate" external links sections. Because those have been allowed to remain thus far does not diminish that an article (even a list article) can not have but one external links section. Somehow many of these external link sections, being the only source in many cases, and used as a source, has escaped corrections. It is not relevant now that it is brought to light that these things need fixing and it is the same with this list article. I have noticed that some corrections have been implemented, and that links to article titles that are only redirects are also being worked on. If these "lists" that have unsourced BLP article content are corrected, as well as the hundreds of other violations in over 700 articles, then we will have a start but we have to start somewhere. This will of course include the Playboy templates that have links to names that only go to redirects back to lists. Some names on this list are also included in List of Playboy Playmates of the Year. Look at the individual listings in the template on this article. All twelve of them link back to this very same article as many do. List of Playboy Playmates of 1985 has 9 of the 12 so there is no doubt this article (as well as many others) need so much work. People may like making articles but there is still (until it changes) policies and guidelines that do have consensus to be followed. Sourcing is a major concern. Articles that do not have reliable secondary sources do not belong on Wikipedia and these circular "list" articles that are also redundant, are among them. Again, make it a list, source it (you can help) and bring it into compliance concerning the other violations per policy, or delete it. Otr500 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to incorrectly assert, as has Ronz above, that this information is unsourced, when it's in fact sourced from the magazine itself. The content presently in this list is the same that has been given in every Playmate's profile in the published magazine (and apparently on their official website now) for much if not all of Playboy's history. If and/or when any additional content is added that goes beyond that info, then additional sources would be a reasonable expectation. Please see my above responses to Ronz for more on why BLP just doesn't provide a deletion argument here.

I'm also confused by your insistence that "this isn't a list", unless you just mean it's not merely a list of unannotated names, but that's not a meaningful distinction. If you're fine with listing the names at all then that rather undercuts your argument (to the extent I understand your comment above at all) that we should never list people who don't merit individual articles. Typically we don't, because most lists of people are such things as alumni lists, lists of people by occupation, etc., which are meant only to index articles (which is why the first link under the WP:LISTPEOPLE header is to an essay about including non-notable people in alumni lists). But this is not that kind of list; it's instead more comparable to the semi-finalists lists in the American Idol seasons, where none of them may have any fame outside of that one context and the media franchise of which they were a part (effectively their "employer" in this context) has given these very basic bio facts about them. I suspect that if these lists were compressed into a table format (using headers for each name just makes the lists seem more empty) and perhaps merged into lists by decade (so long as the formatting could handle expansion for each entry when there was something more substantive to say), that they would have less objections even though the same uncontentious information was given (name, basic physical stats, photographer, etc.). postdlf (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and trimmed the list as described, per the rationale I've already given and the additional comments on the article talk page.
If there are any arguments that the material beyond the names meets BLP somehow, they need to be made now. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see some strong similarities in Postdlf's comments about the AI13 semi-finalists and what I was going to propose here. I'm going to wait until we have some of the confusion here resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do this again while the AFD is pending; it is WP:POINTy and disruptive to blank content based on your nomination alone, particularly after you've already met with disagreement. I have responded at length on your unelaborated BLP opinion; you have yet to make an actual, substantive argument as to why it's not compliant. I'm without any clue as to how birthplace or height, for example, when given by a notable mass media entity on behalf of the models they hire, somehow could be contentious or defamatory so as not to comply with BLP. Let alone photography credits, which you also blanked. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following BLP, rather than dismissing all BLP concerns outright. I've started a discussion. Please participate in it, noting that the burden is on those arguing for inclusion. I'm trying to work cooperatively and with the assumption of good faith by all despite the repeated WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE problems here. I'd already stated that I'd rather not take this route, but it seems we'll never get any substantial arguments for inclusion otherwise. The discussions' comparison to lists of spelling bee winners is a substantial improvement. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss, then start by addressing my arguments in full rather than edit warring to blank an article you want deleted while the deletion discussion is still pending and there is far from a consensus that it violates BLP or anything else. I'm at a loss as to why you think that's appropriate to do. You have yet to articulate a BLP concern, instead of merely repeating the acronym over and over as if it's an incantation. My last observation about why you think your blanking was justified was that "I'm without any clue as to how birthplace or height, for example, when given by a notable mass media entity on behalf of the models they hire, somehow could be contentious or defamatory so as not to comply with BLP. Let alone photography credits, which you also blanked." Can you respond to those comments, or any of the others above I've made as to why BLP isn't a legitimate concern here?

I keep criticizing your comments because 1) this is the forum in which we discuss rationales for deletion, 2) it's your nomination, and 3) you keep repeating weak arguments in support of it that are basically unelaborated opinions and WP:VAGUEWAVEs despite repeated responses urging you to actually develop a substantive rationale. It is honestly weasely for you to keep throwing WP:FOC out in lieu of responding to my specific points, as if that somehow lets you escape from having to make a rebuttal or actually step up and defend your assertions. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you still are having such difficulties understanding my perspective, perhaps you can elaborate on yours. From my perspective, they are simply a dismissal of BLP in total, and that you like the information therefore it should stay. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I've trimmed back the January section of the article to something that I think might be acceptable to retain, in an effort to clarify the BLP concerns and to get editors to address them (poor sources, undue weight, material sourced without independent sources, mention of non-notable persons, redundancy, promotion of Playboy and its viewpoint, etc.) --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your removal of the measurements because, inter alia, 1) this is given for each Playmate as part of their centerfold in the magazine itself, 2) Playboy centerfolds are known for giving these stats for their models and so it's arguably a relevant and even defining part of the topic, hardly "undue", and 3) there's no reasonable argument that Playboy is not a reliable source for its own content and for statements made therein about the models it hires. I also restored the photographer credit because there's no requirement that such credits be limited to notable people; lists of TV episodes, for example, will identify directors and writers regardless of whether they merit their own articles. Who photographed a model in a Playboy feature is of equal relevance to this subject. Though I appreciate that you've refrained from flat out blanking the list again (albeit only after being repeatedly reverted and admonished by multiple editors), you're still editing based on the presumption that your nomination is correct (i.e., what you find "acceptable to retain"), which is exactly what this AFD is to decide. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions on the matter. Do take them up on the article talk page and attempt to build consensus for them. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally not a fan of Playboy content, but those kind of considerations are not relevant to these kind of discussions since Wikipedia is not censored. Also, arguments that basically state that a subject "just isn't encyclopedic" are invalid in these types of discussion. The existence of other Wikipedia articles that may or may not need some cleanup is also not relevant to this discussion as AfD is not cleanup. I understand that the nominator of this AfD has apparently been "concerned" about the inclusion of these kind of lists on Wikipedia for quite some time but that isn't relevant to this discussion either.
I'm not interested in repeating my comments here except to note that recent editing behavior by the AfD nominator in the article in question here has been highly disruptive and not at all in compliance with any Wikipedia guideline that I'm aware of at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am NOT a deletionist, have NOT mentioned any concerns that I don't like Playboy or related articles, and unlike some others commenting here I have not edited the article yet or even related ones. I got involved because this article has severe problems NOT because I don't like it or any related articles so using a smoke screen that it is allowed because Wikipedia is not censored is moot on my part. This article, unlike the two examples above, are not in the same ball park. I like both of those lists because they point to other articles and are really referenced not just a lists that use redirects to other lists. The very same essay used to promote that AfD is not a cleanup also has a whole section The Case for Discussion driving Cleanup that includes "Nominating for discussion brings the page to the attention of multiple editors and encourages them to put aside the procrastination blinders and fix the issue with the article with the specter of a deadline. Some will point to this essay as a reason to not nominate and discuss, but if a page is failing Wikipedia policy it should be discussed and fixed.". An article (and list) does not have a place on Wikipedia when it is redundant and this circular attempt at a list is. I have shown that the information used in this article is not for the purpose of being a list but an article about Playboy Playmates that are sourced with only the information from Playboy so are not as stated "and the items on this list here are all supported by reliable sources". Is it a parking place to advance a way around Wikipedia policies and guidelines? I think so. Does Wikipedia need lists of list that circle back to lists, NO. Does it need a list article that is used as a way to promote Playboy, no. Where are the secondary supporting sources? Either Playboy or mirror Playboy sites does not satisfy Wikipedia Policy on reliable sources and this is well known. "If" the "list" can not be fixed, as it appears from arguments, then why actually have it except to promote Playboy? If that is not the intent then address some of my TOTALLY valid concerns above. People that "extensively" edit this article should see it has problems and help improve it instead of just arguing for keep because it is good or what ever. Why not improve Wikipedia? Is that not a goal? Otr500 (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no more valid problems (let alone "severe problems") with the article in question here. Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content or quality of "other articles". The models on the list in question here have all appeared recently in Playboy. Using information from Playboy about them in an article on Wikipedia is not at all controversial. The current sources in the article in question here are not all from Playboy either. "Where are the secondary supporting sources?" They are now in the article...some 18 or so of them at this point. I have never previously edited the article in question here before July 21st, and I have not previously contributed much to Playboy-related articles in the past because of my personal dislike for Playboy. However, I dare say that this article here has been improved by my (and others) recent edits. Stop whining & complaining about articles and start editing & improving some articles my misguided friend. Guy1890 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the work on improving the article is helpful, it seems that there are valid problems and that some editors would rather treat the dispute as a personal squabble than work collaboratively. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney...there are exactly zero "valid problems" in the article in question here. Continue down your present path of obvious edit warring to achieve your own personal goal of deleting content from this article at your own risk. You have been duly warned. Guy1890 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you have an admin giving telling you to ignore me and start an ANI dispute [2]. Seems nonconstructive... --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors (both here & on the article in question's talk page) have been extremely forgiving of your behavior for quite a while now "Ronz", but it's obvious at this late date that you're not interested in anything resembling a real policy or article content discussion, which is textbook disruptive behavior. I was personally already thinking of taking your editing behavior to AN/I after the close of this AfD...even though I personally loathe the "drama boards" myself. Your behavior during this incident has been completely & totally unacceptable, and I think we're done debating it here. Your recent actions speak for themselves. Guy1890 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and further remove the references-related tag stating that there needs to be more sourcing provided, as everything seems good. I am referring to this recent version of the article, which was last edited by postdlf. I see no BLP or other problems with the article at all, much less specifically with wikipedia-notability of the topic (the subject of this AFD). From what I gather from discussion above, the article has been improved during this discussion. Also I gather that having a list-article like this serves a good purpose in obviating separate articles about each model appearing in the magazine. Seems like this should be ready to be closed as obvious, and that would help put an end to bickering going on. --doncram 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as extremely notable passing GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid arguments for deletion were raised, just a bunch of pointy fuss, and actions like these are blatantly disruptive (and probably topic-ban worthy). Cavarrone 05:47, 23 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 Rixton (band). (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Wilkin[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond Rixton (band), therefore fails WP:BLP1E. Launchballer 23:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 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 redirect to Rixton (band). (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewi Morgan[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond Rixton (band), therefore fails WP:GNG. I can't be bothered to check the history but will someone please tell whoever approved this junk that I am disgusted with them. Launchballer 23:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: despite the AfC tags on the page, it actually never went through AfC. It was created in mainspace by the same author as the other band members' pages.—LucasThoms 00:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rixton (band), as WP:BAND suggests: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability".  Gongshow   talk 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD is just unnecessarily delaying the inevitable - the article clearly qualifies for Speedy deletion per the A7 criterion - so I have tagged it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've declined the A7, even though I'm sympathetic to Dodger67's view. There are AfDs now, I believe, on all of the band member articles, all recently created by the same user. I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All bar one - Jake Roche, which has been here for far longer. I was ambivalent about setting an AfD up on it, but I've just remembered that notability is not inherited and if nothing else it might result in an improved article.--Launchballer 16:15, 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 Rixton (band). (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Bagnall[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond Rixton (band), therefore fails WP:BLP1E. Launchballer 23:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with his band's article. Not independently notable, as evidenced by a complete lack of sources discussing just him. Also, this article provides almost no information more than that article.—LucasThoms 23:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Shaw[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for biographies, academics or creative professionals (as a journalist); I can't find any coverage that's independent and not routine. Also an autobiography by an editor whose only contributions have been to this and related articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His sole claim to notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned are the awards (most of which come from the organisation he works for) and being director of Pictures of the Year International. In his role in POYi there is no demonstration of what he has achieved there being notable. I don't want to rush to the conclusion of deleting it, but it isn't looking good. -Lopifalko (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 23:35, 15 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) 01:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Nicole[edit]

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

This was deleted in an AfD, which was appealed to deletion review. The result of that discussion was to relist it, in order to evaluate the new references which came to light during the deletion review. My role in bringing this to AfD is purely administrative -- I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in two secondary reliable sources.
    1. Piña, Kimberly (2011-08-16). "Katy teen breaks into music industry". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2014-07-15. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
    2. Hadi, Eddino Abdul (2013-11-16). "YouTube pop princess goes unplugged". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2014-07-15. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Megan Nicole to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, though recommending Redirect to List of YouTube personalities if deleted. The two sources presented by Cunard demonstrate Megan's notability under the general guidelines, but I'm on the fence about as a musician. While having reliable, independent sources (and the two here are the best we've seen yet on Megan) is one criterion under WP:MUSICBIO, and those guidelines state that at least one of the criteria must be met, it also says “may be notable”. To me, at least one other criterion should be met, whether it be, among others: having a song on the Billboard Hot 100, Heatseekers or other songs-based charts; being at least nominated for a music-based award; or releasing an album on Bad Boy Records, the label she is signed to. I'd even be more convinced if any of her music was prominently showcased on television, and not just the Internet. But as of now, she still has yet to qualify under the more stringent WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. As for the two sources that have come to light: I deem them acceptable to at least include Megan in the List of YouTube personalities (will try to add her there now), with a redirect should her own article fail to stay on Wikipedia. The redirect request was mentioned in another AfD nomination, but apparently was not accepted due to lack of sources. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megan Nicole now added to the List of YouTube personalities, per the two sources identified by Cunard. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • those guidelines state that at least one of the criteria must be met, it also says “may be notable”. – the lead of Wikipedia:Notability states:

    A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true:

    * It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

    * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

    This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

    Because Megan Nicole passes the general notability guideline, the only policy-based rationale for deletion is to argue that the article's mere existence violates a policy like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or core policies like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't see any such policy violation here.

    But as of now, she still has yet to qualify under the more stringent WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. – she meets the first point of WP:MUSICBIO. You have arbitrarily introduced your own requirement that it must meet a second criterion. That interpretation has no support in the guideline.

    WP:MUSICBIO is not "more stringent" than WP:GNG. If meeting the first criterion in WP:MUSICBIO is not enough to establish notability, WP:MUSICBIO would say so. It does not.

    Cunard (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. When I wrote my above comment, I was leaning toward a weak keep, but I still hold my reservations regarding her lack of public exposure outside of the Internet, as well as no solid hit on a national music chart, and no album. Perhaps one day she will be known in greater circles with those things, but as you point out, Cunard, meeting the first criterion under WP:MUSICBIO is sufficient to establish notability as a musician, and I will back with a keep, though just barely past weak keep. I'm also struggling with there being only two sources, but they are independent of one another, and independent of the subject. With further research, someone (perhaps one of us two) could find additional sources which will enhance what has already been established about Megan's notability through the two presented here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She meets the WP:GNG without any need to consider WP:MUSICBIO as there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The VIBE Vixen is business as usual news of a label signing. But the Strait Times, Houston Chronicle, and News Tribune articles are all substantial and treat Nicole as the primary subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to have met GNG over time, frequently there are youtubers that get articles deleted early on but then come back as their popularity grows. E.g., look at article milestones at Talk:Ray William Johnson. This candidate made made the Billboard Social 50[3], which is a good indicator for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:02, 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 delete. Roughly WP:TNT. j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right Click Capital[edit]

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

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 8 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm split on whether or not to delete this article, but its current version is unacceptable. If kept, it needs to be erased and started over as a stub without all the vanity. Andrew327 07:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: but have it userfied to somebody willing to work on it. That or send in the bombs. Either way it's a delete. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) (I did it!) 22:02, 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplemente María (2014 telenovela)[edit]

Simplemente María (2014 telenovela) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is too early to create this article, the telenovela premieres yet, nor has transmission date, or have started their recordings, which makes the item is speculative because it still has not confirmed the entire cast. And wikipedia is not a crystal ball Damián80 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 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, j⚛e deckertalk 23:29, 15 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) 01:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese cutting[edit]

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

Seems like made-up. Googling for so-called "inventor" Richard Alan Guillory Jr returns no relevant hits [4]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may belong in a dictionary, but not Wikipedia. Also, the information is wrong; I used this term in the 80s. Frmorrison (talk) 20:21, 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 deleted by Orangemike per WP:A7. WP:NAC NeilN talk to me 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InMarq[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. If I read it correct, a company without a product on the market. No sources in the article that say something about the organisation. The Banner talk 23:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This whole thing is an imaginary future history, which explains why none of the sources appear to mention the subject or any of the wonderfullness promised in the article. Why would they? It doesn't exist yet. Unfortunately for the authors of this article, WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. I predict this article will soon be gone, baby, gone. Msnicki (talk) 04:20, 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 keep. - Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izmit massacre[edit]

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

This article was subject to heavy POV-pushing from both pro-Greek and pro-Turkish editors. Created by a sock of a blocked user, it misrepresented sources and cited disputed or even discredited scholarship (see Footnote 36). In particular, there was no source for the number of 300 dead (as opposed to "missing"). Then it was turned into an article on Turkish atrocities in the same district, again misrepresenting sources, this time turning 12,000 to 15,000 "Christian refugees" into "massacred local civilians". In short, neither version contained evidence that a massacre of the claimed scale happened in Izmit. Without evidence that a massacre happened, we should not have an article about it. Huon (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The current version of the article is cited by reliable references (at least about the 12,000 local civilians massacred), per [[5]] the claim that 12,000 inhabitants were massacred in Izmit peninsula is generally accepted by an Allied commission that invaetigated the case. Also per [[6]] the massacre is confirmed by an Allied commission (attrocities happenned from both sides as the conclusion describes, with the one side being more violent). As for the previous versions, there were heavy pov issues to fix indeed (pov, or etc) thus most part of it had to be removed, not the mention the general disruption caused by the creator of the article. Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: About the nom. there is a claim about 12,000-15,000 Christian refugees indeed, in p. 10, but in p. 11[[7]] (section: Excesses committed by the Turks) gives both the claimed number of refugees and deaths: "more than 12,000 persons massacred, 2,500 missing, and the remainder of the population *more than 15,000) living as refugees in Ismit".Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -overall these kind of articles always gets questioned by users on different "sides of the dispute" but we go after reliable sources on Wikipedia. And this article has reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No indication that there was an event to be called a massacre, or even who committed it, and all of the sources vary so much to be useless and not up to standards for an article. Since it is not even expressed who was responsible for massacres; this seems to be a generic title for both the Turkish and the Greek sides to throw out a name for a supposed massacre they have allegedly committed towards each other. A lot of the regional events are already covered under the Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21) article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After careful examination and various copy-edits, I think this should be a keep. The sources are from notable authors and historians and they're as reliable as it can get. The usage of both primary sources and contemporary sources in this article signify the notability of this event. I also think much of the problems over POV have been solved, but that is not to be discussed here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the lead paragraph, after all the copy-editing, still makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple RS make this event notable and AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 05:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to apologize to Alexikoua. I didn't read the source thoroughly enough; it indeed says what Alexikoua cites it for. So there was a massacre of Greek and/or Christian civilians. My main concern thus is moot; I withdraw my nomination. Huon (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConnMan[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Necrotarian[edit]

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

This seams to be more like a case for dictionary. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to User:Steelfire at Talk:Necrotarian the word is a neologism that "is starting to be quite a common word to use". With primary sources to establish its use over a period of time, it might meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, but without secondary sources it does not meet Wikipedia's. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ““Necro-”” means ““dead””, and dead plant material on one's dinner plate is just as dead as dead animal material. Claiming that this term applies only to animal-based food violates WP:NPOV.  Unician ∇  06:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I found a few vegetarians and vegans using this as a slur on meat-eaters, but no sign that is in broad currency, no sign that it passes General Notability Guideline, and no sign of anything that could make this article into anything other than a dictionary definition. --Stormie (talk) 01:12, 22 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. per sources found, Not much point leaving this out any longer since it's an obvious Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Blue Spring State Park[edit]

Madison Blue Spring State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (finishing for someone else) ‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a state park, I believe this is inherently notable. I was also the article creator (back in 2006). --‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 20:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebyabe: why was what I wrote here deleted without it even it even showing in this project page's history. Did you do that? Was there a good reason for its deletion? Isn't the purpose of a deletion discussion page for anyone to give a reason why an article should be kept or deleted and if somebody else disagrees with it, shouldn't they reply to that post showing why that reason doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies instead of just removing it to make their own opinion seem more important than the other person's. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a bona fide state park. Verified articles about those are kept. For a recent example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelican State Beach. This article is reliably sourced both to the official state website for the park [8] and to a substantial news article.[9] In addition, there's substantial discussion of this park in scholarly works [10][11] as well as in numerous other guide and travel-oriented books such as [12][13][14][15]. Obviously notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:11, 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 both articles. Deor (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Kočev[edit]

Stefan Kočev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Futbol vic (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 with a claim that the Macedonian First League is fully pro, a claim that is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Blažeski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My claim was gotten from the first paragraph of the First Macedonian Football League. Futbol vic (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the source deciding that the Macedonia Prva Liga is unprofessional then I suggest that it should be looked at. http://web.archive.org/web/20070519070722/http://www.jadransport.org/articles/3786.html Futbol vic (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment No one isn't saying the league isn't professional. The claim is that it isn't fully professional. It's not that players aren't paid to play ... but that is their only employment of all players in the league. If that's so, then simply provide some evidence of this, in any language, and the league will be added to WP:FPL. This may seem unfair and reek of WP:BIAS, but that's Wikipedia for you ... Alternatively, you could provide media references (in any language) that the player is notable, with significant media coverage. Though even I think that does seem unlikely with only 2 professional appearances. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The link provided above is quite old and may well be out of date but actually seems to specifically imply that this league, at least in 2007 was definitely not FULLY professional, as required by NFOOTY, as it states that there were only three professional clubs in the league. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability on Kočev. I don't think that Blažeski should be part of this nomination. I'm not seeing the similarity - much more experienced player with lots of starts and older. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both - They aren't deemed notable as they haven't played in a fully professional league nor have they any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:38, 26 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 Chicago and North Western Transportation Company. I know delete was the numerical winner here, but the limited merge per Carrite satisfies WP:ATD and I believe meets the spirit of most of the straight delete !votes. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and North Western Historical Society[edit]

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

This article leans as a promotional article; it lacks references and significance and other articles about railroad historical societies are nearly nonexistent. TheGGoose (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Railcruft. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-party WP:RS to indicate notability. --Kinu t/c 06:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. Overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at best but heavily prune -- 3000 members is quite considerable, as is the publication of a jounral regularly. The first three paragraphs and the one about the jounral might just be worth keeping. The lists of meeting and of officers should certainly be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the number of members is not a criterion for notability. it needs third party significant coverage which is clearly lacking. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chicago and North Western Transportation Company. The annual meets, names of officers, blah blah blah is too much, but a short section on the society at the bottom of the railway page would not only be within scope but would be beneficial to readers. Self-source the info to society publications, if necessary, but get a couple footnotes in there to provide verifiability. As a stand-alone article this fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@evleaks[edit]

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

This article, while ostensibly well sourced, covers a subject who appears to not meet the requirements of the notability guidelines. To wit, two of the four sources which cover the subject (and not the devices they're leaking) do so only tangentially. The Verge included Blass in a story about prescription drugs, and Wired included him in a list of 101 reporters. The Times of India does cover Blass in detail but this does not meet the requirements of "significant coverage" in multiple outlets. The fourth, on Android Police is a blog which we don't normally consider as sufficient to demonstrate notability.

I've searched through google news for more sourcing on @evleaks or Evan Nelson Blass and can't find much else (though the search itself is confounded by bylines or attributions for leaks). Many of the remaining inline sources in the article refer to phones leaked by Blass or his employment at various tech writing outlets.

As you review the nomination please follow the linked sources and determine for yourself if they cover Blass tangentially or if they are indeed significant coverage of Blass himself. The devices leaked are all obviously notable and garner swaths of press coverage, hence the article itself may contain many references despite a paucity of sourcing on Blass.

More troubling is the likelihood that @evleaks is edited and maintained by an editor who appears to be Blass's PA and the anonymous threat here to an editor who tagged the page for speedy deletion. As such, this leaves me unwilling to ignore the article as I might a relatively anodyne stub made independently. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Source coverage is borderline for establishing notability. Like the nom, if that were the only issue I'd be inclined to give it a pass. Unfortunately the article is also an unambiguous WP:COI - WP:PROMO. That plus the iffy sourcing tips the argument in favor of deletion. I did not take into consideration the menacing comment, allegedly from the subject of the article, preferring to judge the article on its own merits. But I will note that it was not very classy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments on the articles talk page. I also conducted a search on my countries main news sites web pages and found one mention on each site, which effectively was the same article reworded (for copy-write reason), where @evleaks was mentioned once and in passing only.The Original Filfi (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As previously commented, subject does not in and of himself meet Wikipedia basic guidelines for notability defined by Wikipedia:BASIC, even if several of the subjects he leaks are notable because the associated companies are large and well known. @evleaks himself has not been covered in multiple significant, reliable outlets. While the article points out @evleaks was a former blogger at Engadget and other tech blogs (under his real name Evan Blass), searches do not show any of his blog writings indicate notability as defined by Wikipedia:AUTHOR. I will set aside the fact @evleaks contacted me to threaten/intimidate me from making changes to the article, as that is tangential: the article warrants deletion on its own. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:50, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VeriCoin[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. The article only has three real references, four are first-party, one of them is from a generic cryptocurrency database and the other two you can submit your own articles. I was unable to find significant coverage of this crypto-coin from reliable sources independent of the subject. Afilja (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Easy call. No reliable independent secondary sources means no article. Msnicki (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Not seeing anything in the academic literature, NYTimes or WP:RS in google. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:40, 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 redirect to List_of_schools_in_the_Australian_Capital_Territory#Public_schools. There is a clear consensus to not keep. Opinions differ on merge vs. redirect, and the correct target for said merger or redirection. I'm going to go with Deor's suggestion; if anybody feels strongly that some other target would be better, fixing it seems like it would be within normal editorial discretion. And I'm going to leave the history intact, so if anybody wants to mine existing material for a merge, that's available too. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arawang Primary School[edit]

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

unsourced article that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
East -- are you sure you didn't mean redirect? I can scarcely imagine content less worthy, on the whole, of a merge. Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Look at the user name who contributed the initial content. If 2003 is a birth date, then we are talking about content written by an 11 year old, probably a student of the school, which seems consistent with the language and nature of the content we are seeing. If this is the encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit, then maybe we should be trying to nurture this editor not delete their work and discourage them. Primary school articles tend to be borderline notable at best but still there are quite a lot of them out there; I suspect many are written as a classroom project. Does it really do any great harm to keep this article and make one new (probably young) editor feel a bit more welcome and more likely to contribute in the future? I've added some content, some citations and generally tidied up the content while trying to preserve the information that the original editor thought important. Kerry (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's worth bearing in mind that the readership of primary school articles is probably likely to include primary school children, so that's probably an argument for keeping content that might be of interest to children, even if it does not interet us as adults. Kerry (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we;'re going to keep these, it would not be because the readership of the articles is likely to be primary school students (I think the readership is likely to be people in the immediate locality regardless of age, who look for all local institutions); it should be because these articles have a purpose in providing suitable articles for primary school students to write in WP. Experience has shown that upper level students in such school can effectively write for WP, if they choose appropriate subjects. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are now reliable sources to a majority of the information in this article. And plus, the creator was probably someone younger than 13, so they would not have much information on citing sources or Wikipedia in general. It should be kept. Perhaps if it was written or given attention much earlier the article would have met the quality of standard Wikipedia wants to have in its articles. Burklemore1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Self-published material and a school report that every single similar such school has constitute nearly all (bar one) of the refs in this article. I'm still waiting for the keep !voters to explain what they think is notable about this school that has been covered in independent RSs, and how the school meets wp's notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Weston Creek per Doctorhawkes. Pretty standard. IgnorantArmies 03:54, 23 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 Vancouver School Board. The article Vancouver School District is itself a redirect, so I decided to redirect it to the article that the Vancouver School Disctrict redirected to. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-5. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vancouver School District 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 1000s 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) 08:35, 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. The advocates of keeping have failed to address the rationale for deletion; they seem to admit that the article in its current form fails to meet inclusion criteria but that an "alternative home" might be found for the information. If anyone wants this to be userfied, with an eye to incorporating some of the content into another article, drop a note on my talk page. Deor (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

York & Selby Lines[edit]

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

An article likely to mislead based on a single source. The source is given the article - a single webpage by West Yorkshire Metro see http://www.wymetro.com/TrainTravel/traintimetables/yorkandselby/ Ponts:

  • West Yorkshire Metro uses this term on a webpage and timetable - the majority of the services described are not operated by West Yorkshire Metro - but by Northern Rail, and Transpennine Express - who do not use this term York & Selby Lines at all.
  • As far as I can tell this article is based on the misinterpretation of a single source - a timetable produced by a company that does not operate the trains on the "line"
  • As such the current article misleads in giving the impression that "York and Selby Lines" is commonly used or an official title for this set of lines
  • I found no evidence outside the single source for any usages of the term "York and Selby line" to mean anything other than the rail line or service between York and Selby.

..Even the lead section is wrong - quote "The York & Selby Lines is the name given to a group of services in the West Yorkshire Metro area" - most of the services described are well outside the West Yorkshire Metro area - it contradicts its own source... I don't think this article can be made to make sense, realistically.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it isn't the bus spotters it is the train spotters. Nom is completely correct. Szzuk (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless alternative is found, Maybe this isn't the best home for this, but I don't think we can just go around deleting articles like these without finding an alternative home for the material. Wikipedia should have some coverage of these routes. Simply deleting them is not a sensible solution. G-13114 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per G-13114, we should not delete these articles until we have a suitable alternative lined up. I grant you this article will need to go eventually, but there should be time allowed for the WT:UKRAIL community to discuss how to cover these lines instead of "York and Selby". If we delete these then we get left with a swathe of railway for which we have no article, and that is worse than having an ill-fitting article. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copied an (shortened) answer from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways
  • The basic service described in [16] (Leeds to York, Selby, and Hull) is covered be under Hull and Selby Railway , Leeds and Selby Railway, , and York and North Midland Railway (part of)
  • There is/was a "York and Selby line" .. a direct line from York to Selby. This was part of the line known historically as the "York to Doncaster branch", (Act was N.E.R.(York and Doncaster Branch) 1864 Act (c.xlix)). An article that hasn't been written yet. Briefly mentioned in the ECML article.
One solution is a disambiguation.
However I don't think it is a good idea to keep an article simply because it exists. The usage is misleading, based on a single source (there aren't other sources), and contradicted by sources that should be more reliable eg Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and the historical record.Prof.Haddock (talk)
I'm not arguing that the article should be kept indefinitely, just that there should be time for people to discuss what actually needs to happen with it. I was away on holiday for a week and came back to find two line articles had been deleted, leaving areas of the network uncovered. Just give us some time so we can work out which bits go where. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is "nothing to save" since the article is mostly nonsense -as it is based on a false supposition - also WP:REDLINKs can be a good thing.
? Do you want an admin to pause this process for 2 weeks or something and then return. I have no issues ? Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the afd being paused, the content can be copied to any incubation destination prior to deletion. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page meets deletion criteria under WP:NRVE, WP:OR and WP:SYN ie creation of topic not covered elsewhere, based on an interpretation of a single source. As such also appears to be a case of WP:NEO (invention/promotion) of a new term.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kneeling Christian[edit]

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

PRODed this as unrefereenced & non notable: PROD removed since a ref has been added. Ref does assert that the book is notable, but I have doubts about the reliability of the source and can find little on either book or author to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The author of the book was Albert Richardson (priest) although he wrote it anonymously. The sources for Albert Richardson (priest) includes the University of Birmingham. Richardson was a fairly prolific writer and it would be pity to delete the article on one of his more famous books. Wayne Jayes (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added 10 citations to illustrate how many times the book has been reprinted reissued and included in derivative works, this must sure indicate notability. Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is certainly a notable book. The book has presently 96 ratings and 10 reviews on goodreads. It is available in stores all over the world. Specific Google Search of the title returns 321 results on 33 pages. Solatido (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Christian Classics Ethereal Library informs on the online page of the book that the "book has been accessed more than 91344 times since June 1, 2005." (See Page)Solatido (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has gone through some brushing. I hope someone closes this discussion and removes the afd tag.Solatido 12:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the Internet Archive's introduction (now cited in the article) that "The Kneeling Christian is considered to be the most widely-read book on the topic of prayer." – Fayenatic London 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The fact that a number of publishers have kept the book in print over a period of nearly 50 years suggests that it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie[edit]

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

The sources are mostly primary. Aside from the linked http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/tutorials/debug-fix-software-with-help-from-the-bug-genie, which I don't even know is a WP:RS, I can't find any extensive coverage to help support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The talk page incorrectly linked to the second AfD. There were additional sources there. I would like to WP:WITHDRAW my nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colossal Kaiju Combat (franchise)[edit]

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

A kickstarter video game series which has yet to be released. The only coverage is some minor coverage about them getting hit with a law suit from Wizards of the Coast. Whpq (talk) 02:30, 8 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) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It has succeeded in raising a decent amount on kickstarter (over 100k) which does lend it some notability but then all I could find was a one line mention in this 1 and then this article 2 from the makers of SciFi JAPAN TV plus an Escapist article basically repeating what two references already say about the wizards of the coast lawsuit. 4. JTdale Talk 17:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The amount of money raised by a kickstarter does not lend it any notability. There is no coverage about the amount raised, and to be frank, that sort of coverage would be the same as any startup company getting coverage about funding. It would be business as usual coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 15 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, Davewild (talk) 13:29, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Sareen[edit]

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

Only news coverage appears to be related to expensive divorce settlement. Will be sent to AfD if prod is disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:02, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to obvious lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 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. Twice relisted with no one avocating that it be kept. Deor (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for Our Lives[edit]

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

Pamphlet (22 pages) with no claim to notability. Or any references, for that matter. Mikeblas (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:58, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, couldn't find any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Stormie (talk) 01:17, 22 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. Nominator is a sockpuppet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Bhasin[edit]

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

Not notable Johny 547 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Since the Tahir Bhasin has also worked in the notable film like this and it shows notability of person too. But still needs more independent sources and coverage. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 12:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:56, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 13:26, 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 keep. The article is by no means perfect & needs some TLC, Notability is there passing GNG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions Page[edit]

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

Reads like a soapbox or an opinion piece. Non encyclopedic IMO - might merit a dictionary type entry Gbawden (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article could definitely be improved to sound less like an essay, but I think the subject is still worthy of coverage on Wikipedia. The concept of confession pages has received enough media coverage to adequately define it as a notable entity, and the subject has received enough controversy and discussion that I think an encyclopedia entry is appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage certainly seems to meet General Notability Guidelines. If there are stylistic issues then that's a matter for editing, not AfD. --Stormie (talk) 01:19, 22 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) 13:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton hill Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non notable, just another cricket club playing in a non professional league. Sounds like a promotional article Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree that it reads like a promotional article. The words "Our home ground and clubrooms" are a bit of a give-away. And there's no indication that the club is notable. JH (talk page) 15:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable cricket club, well it is as far as I can tell! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article should be kept as it is just being used to put the local suburban cricket club out to the world, it is just to show the history of all the good players the we have had over our history. This page is not a promotional article as all of the stats and history is from the club website and the page is managed by a current club player who is making sure at everything a correct to the clubs history.~User:MRT2014 User talk:MRT2014 — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • delete low level amateur sporting club, and full of useless statistics. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Prince[edit]

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

Single-sourced WP:BLP of a musician whose only substantive claim of notability is playing one show as a guest of a notable band of which he isn't ordinarily a member — which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 13:21, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

49th Precinct[edit]

49th Precinct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable - only of the other police precincts have an entry - see Organization of the New York City Police Department#Police precincts. What makes this one notable? Gbawden (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No assertion of notability and precincts are a dime a dozen. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most precincts are not notable. Even Fort Apache ("Former nickname of NYPD's 41st Precinct located in the South Bronx, basis for book and film."), being the subject of Fort Apache, The Bronx, is not an exception to this rule. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual police precincts are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

100 Computing Lessons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Googling the subject brings up book stores trying to sell it and that is pretty much about it. Furthermore almost qualifies for a speedy as promotional. AlanS (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article right now makes no assertion which meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria to establish notability for a media product. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Not able to locate any reviews or discussion that would establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought the references would support a claim of notability about the book being used in schools, but that's not true -- it's just designed to meet curriculum requirements. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 12:28, 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 keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. Discussion regarding the article can always continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle of the Spanish Army in 1989[edit]

Order of battle of the Spanish Army in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't understand the rationale for this article. Why have this per year? What is the significance of 1989? Who were they attacking? Rather concentrate on keeping the current info up to date. If this info is really necessary add it to a history page somewhere Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be misusing order of battle, as it's not actually describing the Spanish armed forces "participating in a military operation or campaign" because there was no Spanish operation or campaign that year AFAIK. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we joking? 1989 was the end of the Cold War and for most armies in Europe we have a detailed Order of Battle for that year to show how troop strengths and dispositions were at the end of this 45 year long confrontation. Besides doing the historic OrBats I also keep the current armies up to date and the information collected for the NATO and Warsaw Orders of Battle at the end of he Cold War is WAY too much to include in the respective army articles. The NATO and Warsaw Pact Armies were organized, trained and placed to fight instantly if the Cold War went hot and therefore OrBats describing the situation at the end of War, before troop levels were drawn down, serves to understand this four decade long campaign to deter the other side. In my view this AfD discussion is spurious and should be closed instantly. noclador (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the other individual countries' OrBats for 1989, please. I'm having trouble finding anything other than the NATO 1989 military structure articles (such as NORTHAG wartime structure in 1989, which is incidentally not titled "order of battle"). Category:Lists of British Army units and formations, for example, has no such list as this Spanish one. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Structure of contemporary armies. The relevant listing for the British Army is at Commander Land Forces, since that post-holder is the successor to Commander-in-Chief, Land Command. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This objection would seem to be trivially solved by renaming it to "Structure of..." or "Organisation of..." (both of which would be reasonable). I don't think it affects notability either way. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory . Other stuff exists is not a convincing argument for keeping this listing. Edison (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listing army (or navy) compositions by year, especially in peacetime when not a lot changes very quickly, doesn't make much sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for doing further research based on WP:Reliable Sources, not deleting what we already have!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the structure of the Spanish Army at the end of the Cold War. A War that ended in 1989. The listing also gives the wartime structure of the Spanish Army in case the Warsaw Pact would have attacked, as Land Forces Command would have fallen under NATO SACEUR with the 1st Armored and 3rd Mechanized Divisions becoming mobile reserves for either NATO LANDSOUTH in Italy or for NATO CENTAG/NORTHAG in Germany. The article needs to be expanded to include this information and it needs to be tied in with other Cold War end articles. noclador (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I am absolutely appalled at the nominator's WP:RECENTIST attitude. Every unit on this list, and others, can be tied through multiple WP:Reliable Sources and is independently WP:Notable via the WP:GNG. The title may be a little misleading, due to this being effectively the Organisation of the Spanish Army in 1989, but nobody here with any historical knowledge should have to ask why any editor would spend hundreds of hours amassing this material - it depicts the Spanish Army at the end of the Cold War. It also forms the basis for further research on military organisation, sociology, etc of the Spanish Army on Wikipedia.
Gbwaden, this page is too large to add it to a history page for the Spanish Army, and thus it sits separately. I am going to alert the WT:MILHIST community to this listing, and seriously, if you continue to list historical lists of ships, units, etc, for deletion, I will have no option but to call for an RfC-U. This kind of material is unquestionably notable, has significant historical value, and is the basis for further expansion. Please desist in listing such material for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ending of the Cold War was an epoch in the history of the Spanish armed forces (and other NATO / WP). Hamish59 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Did the Spanish Army play any notable part in the Cold War at any time? Did its order of battle have any connection to the end of the conflict? (Also still waiting for comparable lists for other armies.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you know nothing about NATO, the Cold War, the War Time Structure of NATO, etc. and thus can't comprehend that these list are important to understand the Cold War. I suggest you go and read a few dozen books as we at MilHist did before deciding to work on compiling this lists. If you have to ask what part the Spanish Army played in the Cold War, and what connection it had to the end of the War - a) that shows you're clueless about the topic and b) to fill you in: notable because maximum historic extent; switched to standard NATO gear, structure, codes; provided reserves, for 3x theaters of operation: AFSOUTH, AFNORTH, AFCENT as directed by SACEUR (similar to French Army which served as reserve for AFSOUTH-LANDSOUTH and AFCENT); blocking of straits of Gibraltar; securing NATO Lines of Communication if Rhine Line breached, etc. etc. etc. and as for connection to the end of conflict: the addition of the Spanish Military and NATO's technological improvement of its forces pushed the Soviet Union into higher defense expenditures for ever more troops, and these expenditures ultimately bankrupted and destroyed the Warsaw Pact. Last but not least: I am not telling you where the other lists are to prevent you from doing more of your frivolous and ridiculous wanton destruction of relevant, important and useful articles. noclador (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you know nothing about WP:CIVIL. You're not telling me where the other lists are? Show a little maturity. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Buckshot06, Hamish59, and Noclador. Article identifies the military structure of a major European power as part of an alliance with other nations at the conclusion of a decades-long ideological struggle. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. This represents the end of Cold War-peak of the Spanish Army. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seems to be a fairly clear rationale for covering the ORBAT of the Spanish Army at the end of the Cold War. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 20 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. There was agreement that Lago fails WP:NFOOTBALL but that guideline is a floor, not a ceiling; if a player meets the GNG in some other he or she may still be notable. There was no consensus as to whether the sources found were enough. Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Santos Lago[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was decline. However, the underlying issue of the last afd still remains. He has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. There are search results but they are not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:42, 8 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) 15:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's easy to find recent media references to this player - though not enough to meet WP:GNG such as [17] [18] [19]. Combine that and him having a long career, the team captain, a very high goal-to-game ratio over such a long period of time, and many Europa League and Champions League appearances then this sticks out against the average non-notable player and requires one to dig deeper. Digging deeper, there is a lot of coverage of his games over the years. And even the occasional deeper feature. Here's a good example [20]. Surely with features like this, this player meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 13 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) 12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is plenty of significant coverage in RS, so I believe the article can meet the GNG. I added a recent Globo Esporte article about him and expanded the article slightly, but it needs more work. Although the Bosnian top flight may not be fully-pro, Wagner is among the all-time leading scorers, and more notable than someone with one unremarkable season in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the standards in WP:NFOOTY mark someone as being presumed notable; however, failing to meet those standards does not guarantee non-notability. I think Wagner's long career, large number of goals, and three UEFA Champions' League appearances (match details linked from [21]) grant sufficient notability. --Stormie (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jatinder Singh[edit]

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

Don't believe this person is notable enough - this is a case of WP:BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : I almost wish this could be preserved somewhere because it's textbook WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 11:58, 15 July 2014‎
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO and was speedy deleted under A7 in March. Sam Sing! 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP1E, and the prior speedy deletion appears to bear this out; nothing new seems to have been added. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 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 redirect to Sonia Ahmed. The requests for userfication are moot since the material is still availble in the history. This close is without prejudice to future recreation if the film does become notable. SpinningSpark 11:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Shall Dance[edit]

I Shall Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) میں رقص کریں گے

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage, only reprints of director's statement/synopsis from official website BOVINEBOY2008 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The film will debut in September. Then we will have some media coverage for sure. I guess this film could be notable in the near future. Can't we wait some time? There are so many articles in WP without sources... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This film doesn't meet WP:NFF, which is the guideline we generally follow for future films. Even if articles don't cite sources, we want to known if there are sources. I have done searching for this film and I don't find anything except for essentially press releases. BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there are many articles in Wikipedia without sources. But there shouldn't be. DS (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether or not unsourced articles exist, its about whether or not sources exist that could allow eventual improvement of them. This one is close. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: I Shall Dance Sonia Ahmed Abid Ali Changezi
  • Delete - Non-notable, yet to be released film. We can revisit notability after release if it garners coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Deletethere are enough sources for now..... I think the author is adding more sources.... would suggest wait. --WolfCare50 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my i-vote. Return to sender as user draft until release and better sourcing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, articles on future films are allowed if they meet the caveats set in WP:NFF (paragrah 3) requiring ongoing and persistent coverage. And what may have inspired the creation of those other articles (read WP:WAX) is not the issue, specially as they have sourcing away from IMDB. The "fuss" here is twofold: 1), this film has not itself received enough independent reliable coverage to merit being an exception to governing guideline WP:NFF and 2), please read WP:PROMOTION and study WP:PRIMER. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. I do not think anyone here is asserting that it should be deleted forever, only that it not go to article space until it is clearly seen that it merits inclusion. If you asked for it to be moved temporarily into a draftspace at User:MinkyThePet/I Shall Dance as you continue working on it, I believe that request will be met. But even when it does release in September, we will still require multiple reliable sources speaking about the film. Inclusion herein is not about existence, it'sabout meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability. That said, Wikipedia policy does allow that it may be spoken of until then in a related article... such as the one for its filmmaker Sonia Ahmed... where it is already mentioned. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: in consideration of the improvements and sourcing added to this new article since its nomination,[22] and the fact that filming is complete and release is pending, I am seriously reconsidering my "delete" vote. Still musing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the basis of that sourcing, it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my i-vote. Return to sender as user draft until release and better sourcing. Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:03, 24 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, NorthAmerica1000 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quality of sourcing is not actually at a keepable level yet — rather, the article as written is relying almost entirely on primary sources and IMDb, with virtually no coverage in proper reliable sources to confer notability. That said, the quality of coverage is likely to improve once the film is actually released — so I'd suggest that it might be acceptable to hang onto it in draft or sandbox form, but it cannot stand in articlespace until the sourcing cuts the mustard. Delete or move into draftspace; no prejudice against recreation once real sourcing is actually available. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "enewspak.com" asserts itself as "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine", and offers coverage about director Sonia Ahmed (former Miss Pakistan World), and her project "I Shall Dance": November 2, 2013 July 6, 2014. I can accept this being moved to draftspace for a brief while. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of ten citations here I see eight that are to unreliable sources like press releases and IMDb, and only two that are to enewspak — and of those two, one is a blurb and the other is Sonia Ahmed writing about herself. Those might be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts as part of a diversity of reliable sources, but they don't cut it if they are the best reliable sources anyone can come up with. And that's not to even get into the rather large question of whether enewspak is really "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine", or just some dinky webmedia project that asserts itself to be "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine" for promotional purposes — what verification do we actually have, besides what the magazine asserts itself to be, of whether it actually lives up to that claim or not? Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does not seem to be any agreement here on the subjective question of whether the sources presented constitute enough coverage to push the topic past the general notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemelson Capital Management[edit]

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

Article written by a single purpose account promoting Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson and his financial businesses. Lemelson Capital Management seems to be hanging its notability on its involvement (as a major shareholder) with the devaluation of WWE in March 2014. Its report is credited (usually indirectly) with the devaluation. However, I'm not even sure whether these snippets of news in financial media about one event are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP notbaility criteria. The article largely hung its notability on the performance of its partner hedge fund, Amvona, so I've removed some of these lengthy claims because Amvona and LCM seem to be different things. Many of the citations seem to be to a Seeking Alpha news source, which doesn't seem to be very mainstream and articles are sometimes written by Amvona staff (Lemelson?). Overall I'm not sure this investment firm meets WP:NCORP criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 2-year-old entity that puts out plenty of press releases. I also see brief mentions in the context of WWE. What I do not see, among the dozens of refs in the article, or in Google or Highbeam searchs, is substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prominent financial management firm ranked multiple times by Barron's as top-performing (first and second) hedge fund in the world. Several very prominent examples of its research moving stock values (WWE, K&S, Ligand, etc.) that have been extensively covered in major mainstream media, including multiple references in USA Today, the country's largest circulated newspaper, The Street, Motley Fool and abundant other mainstream and financial media outlets. The fund is not a partner; it is the primary product offering of the firm. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Orthodox2014 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
To be clear, the Amvona hedge fund (not the company) was ranked as top performing. There are two examples of a company report affecting share values, which from what I can see was reported explicitly in the USA Today only once. And are these other financial news sources really mainstream?! Sionk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm seeing several sources, but the same sources often seem to also talk about, get quotes from, or even use "Lemelson Capital" interchangeably with Emmanuel Lemelson. At this point I would say merge, but could use a better explanation as to why the two are independently notable? --— Rhododendrites talk |  02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the strong impression Emmanuel/Greg Lemelson is the sole financer of the Amvona Fund, while Lemelson Capital Management is the legal/business frontage for his activities. But because no-one other than the company itself explains its activities, it's one of the major reasons to question its notability. Sionk (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of sources that quote Lemelson, it's reasonable to infer that he's considered an authority in his field, and thus passes a notability bar. This doesn't carry over to his management company, of course. Ravenswing 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If the Amvona hedge fund is notable, then it might qualify for an article. Since notability is not inherited, that doesn't qualify the management company for one. The article creator has certainly put up a blizzard of press releases, but it doesn't matter if you have five non-independent sources or fifty, not a single one of them can be used to support notability. Ravenswing 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The notability of the firm is fully established in vast independent mainstream and financial media coverage. In fact, aside from useful links to several of the firm's research reports, no primary sources are used here. The Amvona Fund is notable as an investment vehicle because of its performance rankings (top in the world), but the firm is more so because it has both managed the fund and produced the research reports that have been heavily cited in media as having tangible impact in the respective valuations of these stocks--that is, the extensive media coverage that establishes notability is more centered around the firm than the fund from my reading. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Then where are those sources? Coverage which establishes notability should be of articles about the subject, in independent sources, describing the subject in the "significant detail" required by the GNG. They can't be press releases, and they can't consist of quotes from the subject, and they can't be about the fund and mention the subject only in passing, and they have to be explicit and not inferred, and they need to be from reliable sources. Could you point some of those out, please? Ravenswing 19:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Here are a number of the mainstream and financial media references to Lemelson Capital Management included in this article:
  • 1.) "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, June 16, 2014: [23].
  • 2.) "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 22, 2014: [24].
  • 3.) ”World Wrestling pummeled four out of five rounds this week,” by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 11, 2014: [25].
  • 4.) "Should the McMahons Still Be Running WWE?" by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, June 7, 2014: [26].
  • 5.) "Will the WWE Network ever make money," by Daniel Kline, The Motley Fool, May 20, 2014: [27].
  • 6.) "WWE stands to lose $45-$52 million in 2014: Investors to question Vince McMahon health on Monday?" by Jack Jorgensen, Fansided, Sports Illustrated, May 19, 2014: [28].
  • 7.) "Kulicke & Soffa jumps; activist discloses stake, calls for buyback," Seeking Alpha, April 22, 2014: [29].
  • 8.) "World Wrestling Entertainment: Why Investors Should Stay Away," by David Tristan Liu, Seeking Alpha, June 3, 2014: [30].
  • 9.) "David Sims in Washington, Amvona gets it right on WWE," by Colin Lockey, Seeking Alpha Editor, Seeking Alpha, April 12, 2014: [31].
  • 10.) "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.: Yum, I Love Eating Crow (WWE)," by Michael Ranalli, Seeking Alpha, May 28, 2014: [32].
  • 11.) "WWE's stock smackdown is a blow to Vince McMahon's credibility," "Breaking News," Seeking Alpha, May 17, 2014: [33].
  • 12.) ”WWE can’t pull out of slide,” Seeking Alpha, April 11, 2014: [34].
  • 13.) "Lemelson goes long World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.," by VW Staff, Value Walk, May 16, 2016: [35].
  • 14.) "Amvona Short Call Sends WWE Tumbling,” by Clayton Browne, ValueWalk, April 7, 2014: [36].
  • 15.) "Kulicke and Soffa Industries: Large Cash Pile and Activist Involvement," by Alex Gavrish, ValueWalk, April 29, 2014: [37].
  • 16.) "The Amvona Fund Up 22% in May After 17% Gain in April," by VW Staff, ValueWalk, June 5, 2014: [38].
  • 17.) “WWE profitable or on the ropes?” by Sarah Barry James, SNL Kagan, April 15, 2014: [39].
  • 18.) "Biggest takeaways from WWE's May 19 business outlook investor call," by Chris Mueller, Bleacher Report, May 19, 2014: [40].
  • 19.) "Shares of Ligand Pharma tick lower following word from Lemelson Capital Fund has initiated short position in stock," by Hal Lindon, Benzinga, June 16, 2014: [41].
  • 20.) "WWE wrestling fans should get to know Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson," by Dan Marsiglia, Rant Sports, May 21, 2014: [42]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Items #1,2,3) Brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

    Items #4,5) Presuming that Motley Fool's website constitutes an independent, reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking, this is still a brief and casual mention of the subject in a short article about something else.

    Item #6) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

    Item #7) Quite aside from that Seeking Alpha is a site largely comprised of so-called "Instablogs" and almost entirely comprised of self-submitted articles, it can't be described as a reliable source. Beyond that, quotes from the subject explicitly cannot be used to sustain notability of the subject, and that's all this brief piece mentions of the subject.

    Items #8,9,10) Is a blog, pure and simple, as well as subject being quoted about something else.

    Items #11,12) Name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

    Item #13) Blatantly a press release.

    Items #14,15,16) Blogsite with unestablished reliability as a reliable source, and name only mentioned, and just the once, in a brief article about something else.

    Item #17) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and subject only quoted, as above.

    Item #18) Quite aside from that Bleacher Report is user-submitted (want to see links to my own articles on that site?), subject only mentioned in quote from press release.

    Item #19) Website with unproven reliability as a reliable source, and article's behind a paywall.

    Item #20) RantSports.com? Seriously?

    Honestly, I'm not out to bust your chops here, but please read the GNG carefully, because I get the impression you just haven't. The GNG requires that an article sustaining notability must "discuss the subject in significant detail" and debars sources which are not independent, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Quotes from the subject do not count. Casual name drops do not count. Press releases do not count. A single sentence does not count. Blogs and fringe websites do not count. Now you show me a Forbes or a Barron's article, say, that discusses LCM (not the fund and not World Wrestling Entertainment) and runs a dozen or two paragraphs, doing nothing but discussing LCM, and that's a good reference. Listing every website you can find the company name mentioned in a Google search? Those aren't good references. Ravenswing 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename, summarize and expand as Amvona. There is interesting history to the Amvona name, how it started, earlier incarnations, etc. A brief summary is in Emmanuel Lemelson, but most of it is in deleted content from a year or so ago: it was one of the articles - as was Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson - deleted as a result of the Wiki-PR debacle. Some versions of those deleted articles were very well referenced (similar to this article, in fact) and the content could be resurrected, reworked and merged with this article to make a complete history of the Amvona name. This would help to reduce the unduly promotional tone of the current article, which very nearly falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and definitely over-emphasises recent events.  —SMALLJIM  00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • One further concern: Given that Lemelson's article describes him as a Greek Orthodox priest, could Orthodox2014 be Lemelson himself? There might be WP:COI in play, which we ought to know. Ravenswing 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: @Ravenswing: I appreciate your reference points generally but think these (and other) references are consistent with those needed to establish the company's notability, and, no, I am not Lemelson. As I read through these references in closer detail:
  • 1.) "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, June 16, 2014: http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/06/16/money-manager-betting-against-biotech-firm-ligand-pharmaceuticals/\: This USA Today article cannot be discounted as an article about another topic because it isn't. The "money manager" referenced in the headline is Lemelson Capital Management and the entire article from the headline to the lede to 100 percent of the article's content is about the company's research and its impact. And, of course, USA Today is not just another newspaper. This Wikipedia article shows that it is the second largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. and the 14th largest globally: List of newspapers in the world by circulation.
  • 2.) "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback," by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 22, 2014: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/04/22/kulicke--soffa-shares-rocket-after-investor-urges-buyback/8016399/ More or less the same point here. This USA Today article is not about another topic. The article is about the surge in the stock after the "investor" (see headline), Lemelson Capital Management, released a report urging a share repurchase and the ensuing impact. From the headline ("investor") to the lede to the entire content from beginning to end, the article is about Lemelson Capital Management and its research.
  • 3.) ”World Wrestling pummeled four out of five rounds this week,” by Gary Strauss, USA Today, April 11, 2014: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/04/07/world-wrestling-gets-wall-street-style-take-down/7418043/ This USA Today article largely again centers around Lemelson Capital Management and the impact of its research report on another stock.
  • 4 and 5.) I had not really heard much about this news outlet either, but this article on it describes it as a sizable media outlet employing 300 people: The Motley Fool. Both 4 and 5 are largely focused on the impact of another report from the company. 4 includes a sub-head and section about the company. 5 less so, but Lemelson Capital Management's analysis is a centerpiece of the article.
  • 6.) This Sports Illustrated article references the company's report as the predominant basis for major concerns about the referenced stock, suggesting the company's influence.
  • 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.) I do not know much about Seeking Alpha, but 7 references the company in the headline, all of them seem to again point to the impact and notability of the company's research, and 9 is by lined by a Seeking Alpha editor.
  • 13.) I had not looked at this one carefully enough. I concede your point on it and have removed it from the article.
  • 14, 15, 16.) I do not see how these are articles about another topic when the headlines and content of each are about the company and its research impact.
  • 17.) Never heard of SNL Kagan before either, but this article certainly describes it as a "news and analysis" outlet: SNL Financial. If there are questions about their reliability, I don't see anything that suggests that. This article too points to the impact of Lemelson Capital Management's research analysis.
  • 18.) This article is by a columnist. Their website says they are owned by Turner Broadcasting, which I believe is largely credible, and the article again seems to reinforce the company's impact.
  • 19.) I do not know much about Benzinga either, but a quick Google search shows that Forbes publishes their articles and describes them as offering "full coverage of all aspects of the financial markets": [43].
  • 20.) Never heard of Rants Sports either, but this Forbes article and others seem to describe it is a large media outlet ("ranked 2nd in its space and the 12th largest sports platform in the the United States by comScore) and I do not see anything that calls into question its credibility: [44].

I agree this company is not Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan with thousands of examples of their notability, but the company's fund was reported as being ranked top in the world several times and their research appears clearly consequential. Those things, I believe, establish the subject's notability. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: Sorry, but Wikipedia's guidelines just don't agree. A common mistake of the new and inexperienced editor is to interpret Wikipedia's definition of "notability" as "I think it's important." It's not. It's this: "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." To quote further:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material ... Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. [A] one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial.

    That's what you've got here; many, many fleeting, trivial references, and articles which despite your assertions are not about LCM. They're almost all about the WWE. Plainly you're heavily invested in saving this article, but unless you come up with references that qualify under Wikipedia's guidelines, that's going to fall short. Ravenswing 17:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complex recommendation I've been following the primary author's work for some time now. He appears to be too involved and partisan to write on topics related to Mr. Lemelson in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In other words, he "doesn't get" the purpose of Wikipedia, and should avoid editing articles in which he has (or appears to have) strong feelings about until such time as he does. Because of this, I am recommending that this page be stub-ified and the primary editor edit as if Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines applied to him. He should be allowed to remove material that violates policies, minor edits like fixing typographical errors, but not much else. He should recommend all other changes to the article's talk page. I make this recommendation as an alternative to WP:Blow it up and start over and I make it on the assumption that this company does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Due to the morass of over-sourcing, it's difficult for me to determine if this company even qualifies for an article, but for the moment (subject to change at any time), I'm willing to assume it does. For the record, I would not object to outright deletion under a "blow it up and start over" closer-comment. Should the page Emmanuel Lemelson be nominated for deletion or should an RFC on that page's future be started, I will probably give a similar recommendation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Update I also have no objection to Smalljim's idea of "Rename, summarize and expand as Amvona." If the article is found to not adequately demonstrate this company's notability, I would have no objection to keeping the history but turning the page into a protected-redirect to Emmanuel Lemelson#Business career as an alternative to deletion. As the discussion regarding the sources appears to be largely a 2-way dialog, I would say there isn't yet a consensus on whether the listed sources are suitable enough to demonstrate that this company meet's WP:Notability. If I have time, I may look through all of the references and chime in. Perhaps another editor can do the same. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It's really rather a safe bet that there's no consensus that the listed sources suffice to meet the GNG, since the only editor to state that they do (who has actually reviewed the sources) is the article creator himself. There's a clear Delete consensus here, although I've no objection to a redirect to the Lemelson article; it's a reasonable search term.

    That being said, you're wrong here: at AfD, we cannot just "assume" that sources are good; it is our duty to check if they are, or else not express an opinion on them if we're not inclined to do so. I don't claim it wasn't time-consuming for me to check each and every reference in the article, but I did so, and I couldn't have made a recommendation on deleting or keeping the article if I hadn't. Ravenswing 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Off-topic comment that really should be discussed in a new RFC should this article survive or be re-created: I recommend that all future editors of this article who have a WP:Conflict of interest should be explicitly required to either declare their COI or restrict themselves to editing in accordance with WP:Conflict of interest as if they did have a conflict of interest. In other words, I'm recommending that if you edit in a way that violates WP:COI, you must immediately declare your conflict of interest. Supporting or opposing this recommendation will influence whether a formal RFC is started, but until there is a clear consensus to do this as evidenced by an RFC, it won't be enforceable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 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, NorthAmerica1000 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Additional references have been added by the primary editor as recently as today. I have not evaluated these references yet but the closing administrator is encouraged to check all references added since this AFD started which have not been discussed, and determine if they have overcome enough objections raised here to change the outcome or to warrant re-listing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Yes, the article author does keep making a slew of small edits to the article, but I see no noticeable improvement to sourcing with respect to notability. References remain a mass of press releases and other primary sources; lightly warmed-over repeats of these press releases in non-RS or dubious sources (and often difficult to tell if even meant to be objective reporting or advertorial); and side mentions in pieces about WWE and a few other companies. I still see no substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. SHOW ME THE MONEY! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author added only one new source [45], which is a profile of Emmanuel Lemelson, not about his company. The rest of the edits were tinkering with the formatting. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I'm frankly bewildered that a SPA writing about a field as exacting and rules-driven as financial management has such a hard time grasping Wikipedia's rules about how sources qualify as supporting notability of a subject, and really can't come up with any explanations within the bounds of assuming good faith. Under the circumstances, the SPA's denial of COI looks rather threadbare. Ravenswing 13:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got bored of waiting, so I've started cleaning the article up myself. More to follow, probably. I don't mind if it ends up being deleted, it's all good practice at copyediting...  —SMALLJIM  00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has recently undergone or is undergoing significant editing. Comments made prior to these edits may no longer apply to the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that once already. My comments above still stand. What 'significant' edits have taken place? It has been mainly changes in formatting. Sionk (talk) 17:21, 11 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, NorthAmerica1000 11:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've struck my earlier !vote. I haven't substantially changed my opinion, but this expresses it more clearly. There's insufficient evidence that LCM has any enduring notability: it has apparently only existed for about two years and the three events which are its only chance of showing notability occurred in just a few months. The content from here should be merged with Emmanuel Lemelson, where much of it already exists. I apologise for my former vagueness and may I suggest that anyone interested who hasn't yet expressed a clear opinion should now do so, to give the closing admin a decent shot at determining consensus!  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...for now. I think this is a borderline notable article, but it's prominent enough in the USA Today and Motley Fool articles and the Seeking Alpha reports to justify keeping to me. For those of you above wondering about SNL Kagan, I believe it's a publication by SNL Financial. I thought this was a decent source, although I see it was deleted. HtownCat (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per HtownCat. And I note that the bar for notability is being overstated in at least one way, above, where it is suggested that acceptable sources must be principally about the subject. I've learned in another AFD differently, that substantial coverage from within an article about something else, can count. I respect the Motley Fool as an important, influential, credible source on financial matters, by the way. --doncram 22:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is well sourced to a section on Fr Lemelson. Most sources purporting to Notability seems to speak more of the Man's notability than the companies. SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 25 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mason McDonald[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Although his Wikipedia page does not mention it, he was the starting goaltender for Canada at the 2014 IIHF World U18 Championships. Canada won a bronze medal and McDonald was ranked as the top goaltender in the tournament based on the official tournament rankings (See here: [46]). I don't know if that meets WP:NHOCKEY, but I mention it in case it does. 99.192.90.26 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would. The U18 tournament is a level below the World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. If he has "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American)" in his major junior career, I think that would satisfy the criteria. I'm not sure if he has or not. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would not call the U18 a "level below" the U20 tournament. They just are a different age category (just as the U20 tournament is different from the World Chanmpionship). The AHL is a level below the NHL because the same people are allowed to play in both, but the better players play in the NHL. For the World Championship, the U20 and the U18 they are each the highest level for the group of people eligible to play.
But if this is not good enough to pass WP:NHOCKEY, then perhaps the same review should be made of the half dozen kids who were drafted in the second round this year either just ahead or just behind McDonald. There are a number of pages that have popped up where the closest people come to WP:NHOCKEY is the U17, U18 or the Ivan Hlinka Memorial Tournament. Similar cases are Brendan Lemieux, Jayce Hawryluk, Dominik Mašín, Thatcher Demko, Vitek Vanecek, and Josh Jacobs. 99.192.77.77 (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.90.26)[reply]
U-18 definitely falls a level below U-20 in terms of the calibre of play, but also in terms of notability. As for the other players you mentioned, I would suggest evaluating them individually. If they lack notability then they should not be included. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. I did find a good local source, but not enough. FWIW, playing int he U20 tournament is not enough to pass NHOCKEY. The U18 tournament even less so. Resolute 15:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG with substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. Substantial coverage predates NHL draft, so this isn't a "one event" situation. So, even if we assume he somehow never plays in the NHL, he still qualifies for an article. --Rob (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Fails to meet GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage pre-draft is local routine sports coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[47] Mice never shop (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:29, 6 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, NorthAmerica1000 11:11, 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 as a clear circumvention of the result of the previous AfD. The proper forum to contest an AfD result is WP:DRV; one doesn't just re-create the article at a slightly different title. That said, and putting aside the !votes of SPAs who appear to have been led here by a posting on an external site, there is clear consensus that this article should not exist. Deor (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD)[edit]

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

Identical to the article redirected in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, with the exception of the new "Controversy" section which is actually discussing the removal of the original article rather than the subject Jac16888 Talk 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful redirect. Per the previous consensus, this article should not have been created. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer specifically argued not to delete. What is your point, exactly? Anarchangel (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom B14709 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article extensively cited. COI questions in the previous AFD not satisfactorily answered, massive deletions of material in Isotretinoin, deletion of all material from the Post-Finasteride Syndrome article. Time to take a closer look at this.Anarchangel (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original author has now posted a response which addresses the criticisms of the article. It can be found at http://wp.rxisk.org/wikipedia-editor-inserts-foot-in-mouth/ Hhk89 23:36, 8 July 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhk89 (talk • contribs)
  • This article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction is well-documented, balanced and relevant to a real problem. It is true there’s controversy in the medical profession as to whether this is a real phenomenon and/or how widespread it is, but those issues are soberly dealt with. I wish this information had been available to me when I was first given SSRI’s. At that time the occurrence of any sexual side effects whatsoever was confidently estimated at 5%. Today it’s widely acknowledged to be 50% or higher, and their orgasm-delaying properties are accepted and used by doctors trying to treat premature ejaculation. While the majority of these problems clear up once people come off the drug, this is not true for a significant minority. There seems to be a double standard at Wikipedia with regard to “scientific rigor”, based on the topic or viewpoint of the article. As a workers’ compensation professional in Chicago, I would point to these two Wikipedia articles as genuinely problematic :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Lipov, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_stimulator, One is an unabashed and unsupported “puff piece” for a local doctor and his as-yet unproven (but lucrative) stellate ganglion block therapies. The other is an excessively optimistic account of spinal stimulator use for pain post-spinal surgery. Everyone in this field knows there are major questions as to the efficacy of this device; among my firm’s clients we’ve seen twice as many total failures as modest successes – but that issue is completely glossed over. Yet Wikipedia offers only a mild caution as to the “tone or style” of the Lipov article, and finds the highly promotional spine-stimulator article to be above criticism. Please retain the PSSD article. Sincerely, Johanna Ryan, Chicago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.72.187 (talk) 14:42, 10 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been deleted without discussion because it is a copy of Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, which was converted to a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. @Johanna Ryan, please consider making a Wikipedia account to fully participate in the conversation. Hhk89, the content in that link is completely beyond what is considered in making decisions for deletion here. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and if this concept meets it, then there is no reason to provide a long essay of that sort. I appreciate the intent but it might have been better just to ask someone about the inclusion criteria if they were unclear. Evaluation of inclusion suitability is supposed to be decided in a few minutes, and although again, I appreciate that essay, its content seems unrelated to how Wikipedia judges inclusion and exclusion of concepts. I fail to understand the arguments for keeping this. This article does not meet WP:GNG and for that reason I vote delete. I regret that I cannot parse all the many sources but the ones I checked were inappropriate and ought to be deleted, and I expect the author does not understand what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Please ask questions at WP:MED if any of you really want to learn to be part of the community here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical delete I would vote keep for the original article (Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction) because I think the reasoning in the AfD was rather odd ("the article is based on a dozen of cases" - which is simply not true) and the article had plenty of PubMed and journal sources. However, this article is just a new copy of the deleted one. Thus this should be a technical delete, and open a WP:DELREV on the old one for this discussion. --Pudeo' 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original author has now posted a response which addresses the criticisms of the article. It can be found at http://wp.rxisk.org/wikipedia-editor-inserts-foot-in-mouth/ Hhk89 23:36, 8 July 2014. In addition there is a new paper describing this condition at http://davidhealy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-Hogan-SSRIs-and-PSSD.pdf. In the course of my work I have become aware of this condition and know it to be real and as described in this article. In addition I work with other professionals including psychiatrists and pharmacists who are also aware of the condition. Organisations like MIND are aware and deeply concerned about the condition. I am deeply concerned that vested interests may come into play and prevent the truth being spoken clearly. In addition I am aware of the help to those who suffer from PSSD that comes from being able to refer to Wikipedia. 23:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityandtruth (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction and Blue Rasberry's evaluation (and might qualify for WP:CSD#G4). Deli nk (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Delete per Pudeo. I'm not convinced the sourcing is solid but I haven't spent a lot of time on it because of the copypasta from the previous AFD SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 25 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Motor Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. I could not find any indepth coverage. Coverage mainly limited to tourist directories LibStar (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only sources that I could find were two editions of a Fodor's guidebook and a another guidebook called The Caribbean. Neither cover the subject in sufficient detail to raise the article past our notability threshold.- MrX 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage, briefly listed in a couple of travel books, as mentioned above. --Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I easily found some additional sources and added them, not sure why above commenters had not. There are more, too. It meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: While relistings are ordinarily limited to two, relisting to allow time for new sources added to the article to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce your Car! (book)[edit]

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

Ad-like article about a book with few references and none that support notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sort of on the fence about this one. It has some trade reviews and it seems to have been reviewed by this magazine, which does have an editorial process. I also found an article where it looks to have been somewhat extensively mentioned. However other than that, I'm not finding much. There's a Forewords Reviews review, but that site is a little dodgy. They offer paid reviews and while they don't guarantee a positive one, that's enough to kind of make their stuff unusable. The only thing in its favor is that the review predates the fee review service. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think there's enough out there on this one to show notability. Mind you, its not a slam dunk, but it seems to get continuing mentions, many years after its initial publication. The subject is not just a vanity piece like I expected it would be.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:53, 15 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:38, 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. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colossal Kaiju Combat (franchise) makes this inevitable SpinningSpark 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gurral the Smasher[edit]

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

Unremarkable character. Not notable, though I'm not against a redirect to the article on the franchise it's from. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to making it a blank page with a link to the franchise, then delete it completely, as those pages are actually quite disgusting to the average internet user. On the other hand, I don't see where in the criteria for speedy deletion it mentions notability. On the topic of notability, Gurral is drawn by fan-artists on Deviantart who were not commissioned or requested[1]. He is listed in wikis that aren't run by Sunstone Games, as reference in his article. Where is the line for relevancy?
  1. ^ "Fanart", Time, July 30, 2014
User:OgreTusk 01:31, 30 June 2014 (CST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing, in the article, is not reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 10:39, 15 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, czar ♔ 07:58, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:37, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Texas Ranger 3: Deadly Reunion[edit]

Walker Texas Ranger 3: Deadly Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video release of a two-part episode of a TV series Kumiponi (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 08:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:36, 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. Deor (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hebari[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within the Japanese rope bondage community Hebari well known and respected, as evidenced by articles in Nawapedia and SMPedia, both of which are closed web publications and not open to self publishing. Also with interviews by multiple publications around the world including Skin two magazine (physical magazine), Slang Bleu and Something you said, none of which allow self publishing. All of these references are stated in the article. http://smpedia.com/index.php?title=Hebari http://sangbleu.com/2013/02/22/interview-with-hebari/ http://nawapedia.com/index.php?title=Hebari http://somethingyousaid.com/2014/05/07/interview-hebari-from-sydney-rope-dojo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.59.30 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 3 July 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:15, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. AlanS (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG does not appear to me to be met. The Skin Two reference is from a source we'd generally consider reliable, and it does provide signficant coverage, but it's not independent as an interview. Even if that were not the case, we'd need another source with a similar level of editorial oversight. And of course, much as we don't allow Wikipedia itself to be used as a source, other sources relying on third-party contributions without sufficient oversight (even IMDB), don't work under our policies either. Additional sources welcome, of course. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Watrin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks any claim to notability, sharing the stage with a major performer does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:17, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:35, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Mead[edit]

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

Already reached successful Prod status after 7 days without response, tag was then removed by concerned editor, but notability has still not been established using WP:RS material, also appears to be a WP:COI concern Semitransgenic talk. 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His article in French has some refs but I still doubt his notability. If he really were a notable artist in Berlin, would surely have an article at DE:WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Does seem to fail WP:BIO. I'm seeing his work on some well-known art sites, but nothing much on him outside of e.g. bios at galleries he's exhibited at. --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article may well have had enough independent RS before the relisting, but this is no longer important, as there were more sources added on the 8th of July, and the article now meets RS. Anarchangel (talk) 03:50, 10 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:35, 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 merge with Northern Spirit FC. There is clearly no consensus for an outright deletion, but there have been several who have argued for merging and redirecting. I have looked at the comments and sources, and see that a reasonable case can be made that Glades Hornsby is in some ways a successor to the disbanded Northern Spirit FC, and that the proposals to merge has sufficient merit to do that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gladesville Hornsby Football Association Spirit FC[edit]

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

Amateur football club, with no evidence of playing for any significant league. Was tagged for A7 - correctly in my view - but the article creator strongly disputes this and is claiming notability. Since it won't hurt to wait a week, I thought a proper AfD discussion would be best. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is some ambiguity/possibility that this club is in fact a renaming of Northern Spirit FC (as can be seen here or here and given the two clubs' similarity in name and geography). Sources/a detailed history which confirms/denies this are hard to come by. Depending on the conclusion it may be appropriate to merge the two articles (given that Northern Spirit satisfies notability guidelines). Northern Spirit, however, is widely regarded as having disbanded (as seen here) but nonetheless a relevant consideration. Macosal (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the article, I do agree that there is very little information available about this particular club. The reason why I created this page, is due two-fold:
    Firstly, the team qualified for the Fourth Round of NSW's 2014 FFA Cup qualifiers. I feel that many, if not all of the teams entering into this competition deserve their own page. This team plays in the 3rd tier of Australian football. There are roughly 100 teams in the 10th tier of the English pyramid that have their own Wikipedia article, many of whom entered into the preliminary rounds of the FA Cup. Are they truly worthy of being counted as notable?
    The second reason I created this article is that teams such as this, I feel should link to larger articles with more information about them, such as this.The National Premier Leagues system was created in 2013 and serves as a nationwide second league for Australia (and within itself, containing the 2nd through 5th divisions of Australian football). Quite a few of the teams playing in this league played in the national comp as late as 2004, before the formation of the A-League... Even an ex-A-League team competes under this banner.
    As for GHFA Spirit FC redirecting to Northern Spirit FC, I'd have no problem with that, provided we can find the evidence to back this up. This Wikipedia article states that the Northern Spirit played there and now the ground is owned by GHFA. J man708 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Have looked around for info on the club's history (hard to come by). As best I can tell, GHFA had a number of youth teams which were the youth system of Northern Spirit FC. When Northern Spirit (the senior club) ceased to exist, the GHFA formed Spirit FC with the same youth teams and a new senior team through a merger with another club in order to keep a senior team in operation.
Hard to know what to do here/make of this as a result. The most reliable source which confirms this (in passing) is an article from the club's official website quoted here ("In 2005, pressed into linking with a senior group, Gladesville Spirit United was formed"). Interesting also that some sources clearly view the two clubs as a single entity (such as here). The name itself also clearly indicates some degree of continuity. As a result, I'd suggest 'keep, as a club which is the product of a merger involving a notable club. Macosal (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have now managed to find some more reliable sources on the subject. This one describes the change as a "name change". This one shows the initial formation of Spirit FC, and mentions that the club will need seniors in order to play in future seasons (which it would seem subsequently led to the merger). As a result of both of these I would reaffirm that the page should be kept. Macosal (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - to Northern Spirit FC as it appears this is where their youth teams now continue. No notability surrounding the men's team. By definition, playing in the regional qualifying rounds of a national competition is insufficient to satisfy WP:FOOTYN. Wider GNG concerns still exist and am inclined to support the closing admin's comments in this similar discussion as being pertinant. Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this may be a good solution. Club may well become notable in its own right in the future but for now not a lot of information out there. Macosal (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - I'm not sure if this should be kept or merged. Either way, I think it's clear that Delete isn't the correct outcome. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 13 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect (to the target mentioned above). Absolutely reasonable argument can be made that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, per the GNG. The sources mentioned above do not address the subject directly and in detail, which the GNG rightly requires. If the sources can't even give us reliable information about what this club is and how it came about, that's a pretty good indication that the GNG test isn't met.--Mkativerata (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in the interest of achieving consensus, it seems to be noteworthy that no one seems to be opposed to a merge/redirect (except for the initial two editors who may have been unaware of the facts discussed since)? Macosal (talk) 12:59, 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.
  • Comment -Some kind of page is required to detail Northern Spirit FC, as a member of the, then top-flight NSL. I believe playing in a national top-flight football competition leads to notability? As for GHFA Spirit FC and linking the two, that is something I don't fully understand or have an opinion on.--TinTin (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tradejini[edit]

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

This article doesn't appear to fulfill notability on first glance; however, I have a feeling that its' creator would remove a PROD tag. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Never mind removing a PROD tag, the creator actually removed the AfD tag, which I've restored. It's pretty obvious what's going on here. We're being spammed. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:26, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete standard promotional article on a business which hasn't done anything extraordinary or notorious. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Beatbox Championship winners[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not make clear what sport "Beatbox" is or tells anything about the "Beatbox Championships". In fact, the author kept it a secret where this article is about and this makes the article useless for Wikipedia. (Somebody else had to point me to Beatboxing) This "article" is also just a section of List of Beatbox Championships winners that is also on AfD The Banner talk 10:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no sources, and it looks just sad. EMachine03 (talk) 10:52, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Photography[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about an non-notable type of photography, the purpose of which seems to be to promote some of its practitioners. Fails WP:GNG.- MrX 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC) - MrX 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article is horribly sourced and it promotional. I can find sources about people who shoot the circus. I can find sites of circus photos. I can't find anything about 'Circus Photography. I can see where this might be a genre of photography, but only with some better refs. Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 11 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable topic. Skills are no different to a wide variety of indoor photography tasks, which suggests it's not sufficiently distinctive a topic to deserve coverage even if there were more sources (and you can find articles on photographing rock concerts, children's musical performances, other stage performances, children playing, etc, but it's all a bit WP:NOTHOWTO in any case.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 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. No independent sources were brought forward during the debate, either for list items or establishing criteria for the list. WP:LISTN requires the latter. Absent that we're left with the GNG; which still requires reliable independent sources discussing the topic, especially when almost none of the listed items are themselves notable. Mackensen (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of obligatory nude recreation sites[edit]

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

Despite a lengthy list of cited sources, this article is essentially 100% WP:OR. None of the sources are independent sources, all are primary sources intended to demonstrate that the hotel/resort/whatever meets the primary editor's extensive list of homegrown requirements for exclusion/exclusion/allowable exceptions. As the criteria are entirely that editor's own, there is not a notable topic here. As there is no sourced material here, the two year old merge suggestion is a non-starter. (Prod removed without explanation.) SummerPhD (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only. Please always check the edit summary for PROD removal explanations. I didn't leave much of an explanation, but I did leave one. I think the content might be mergeworthy. Also, I was swayed by SummerPhD's admission on the talk page of the article that SummerPhD expected the PROD to be removed, suggesting perhaps that even SummerPhD saw some merit in a full AfD debate. Xoloz (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the generic "keep" edit summary. As I explained on the talk page, this article's true subject is obligatory nude sites according to criteria established by User:DNBR, including every hotel, club and resort DNBR is familiar with. There are primary sources for some of these. There are zero independent reliable sources. I suppose it is theoretically possible that DNBR is a noted authority on the subject. If so, they are hiding the reliable sources discussing this. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All lists have some criteria as to what to include/exclude. If the problem is listing the precise details, I'll delete those. Each site is primary sourced that it is "obligatory." If there's any question in the future about whether or not something should be included, it can be debated on the talk page. Also, will unlink all sites that don't have their own separate Wikipedia article. DNBR (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not that inclusion criteria were listed. In fact there should be clear criteria. However, criteria that are WP:OR are a problem. Is there a reliable source that discusses criteria for "obligatory nude recreation sites" and lists examples? Unlinking all of the non-notable entries does not correct that issue. Typically (with narrow exceptions that don't apply here), "list of..." articles are limited to notable entries. My aunt is not included in "List of people from New York city" and "List of science fiction films" doesn't include the one made by the guy in my 10th grade lit class. Otherwise, lists quickly become indiscriminate collections. This limitation cuts the current article down to five entries that I can see. Two of those are "quarters" of towns that seem to be neither "recreation sites" nor is nudism "obligatory". In the end, Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. There likely is some demand for a guide listing obligatory nude sites of various sorts, but that does not mean the topic is encyclopedic. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the AANR-West web site FAQ [51] : WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLOTHES-FREE VS. CLOTHING-OPTIONAL? There’s a relatively minor difference between these two types of clubs. Clothing-optional clubs allow visitors to remain dressed, believing that some people take more time to adjust to social nudism. At clothes-free resorts, you’re expected to be nude, although no one expects you to disrobe until taking a tour of the facility and deciding to stay. The "quarters" in the France section are both recreation sites, and quite obligatory. (Outside the naturist quarter, clothing is optional or required.) Right now, there are about 75 entries on the page. While there's no doubt some are missing, I can't imagine it would exceed 100 worldwide. Finnish saunas weren't individually listed, as they are very common through the country. There's a similar (though somewhat longer) list on Wikipedia of IMAX venues, and many are not particular notable by themselves. I would never include an entry that wasn't open to general public, either directly (most common) or though naturist organization that anyone can join. DNBR (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have just redefined the criteria for the article. The new title would be "List of recreation sites where people are expected to be nude, other than Finnish saunas, that are directly open to the general public or through an organization that anyone can join". I don't expect to see reliable sources discussing this as a category. Yes, there is a list of IMAX venues. The number of entries is not the issue. We could easily create the article "List of French restaurants" or "List of stores that provide free gift wrapping". The first might survive, if limited to notable entries (73, based on the category), as there are likely sources that discuss the topic. A complete list of them would not, as Wikipedia is not a guide. The list of stores, on the other hand, hasn't a prayer as there are no independent reliable sources discussing the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—DNBR, I have to agree with SummerPhD here. If you can find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this class of resort (where several resorts are listed as examples), then you've established notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:50, 6 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, postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list article such as this would require at least one strong source that published a list of "obligatory nude recreation sites" or that has discussed the subject collectively. From WP:LISTN "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." This article does not seem to meet that criteria.- MrX 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I hadn't heard of "obligatory nudity" previously, this does appear to be a thing. An excellent example of a sourced list. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I add Aunt Edith to List of people from New York City? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 13 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It needs some work doing but to be honest it's Encyclopedic and it also passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put words in your mouth Davey2010, but do you mean that the individual entries pass WP:GNG? That may be, but I have yet to see a single reliable source that demonstrates that the list itself is notable as required by the guidelines, which state "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group."- MrX 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's encyclopedic with valid sources, and I see no comparison to lists of people, especially to millions living in a large city. Let's compare to other Wikipedia lists of sites, and not people. Jzyulds (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its pointless trying to invent a list of non-existant places.
Firstly, the title is bad English - a nude recreation site is Wikipediaese- a site for recreation? Is a Nude site for recreation- one that has been denuded so is bare- maybe the Sahara desert would qualify. Then one which is obligatory /mandatory? You have armed guards insisting you indulge in recreation?
Secondly there is a total misunderstanding of the French Usage of 'La pratique de la nudité est obligatoire' (I took some of the amusing photos). To a naturist, flimsy swimwear and other clothing is seen as a way to sexualise the body- 'La practique' simply means if you go strutting your stuff in a g-string or skimpy bikini- we reserve the right to turf you out. In our opinion you are not following practice of non sexual nudity but engaged in you own sexual fantasy.
Three- the impressive list of WP:OR references is nothing of the sort- some refs are broken, some don't actually refer to the topic, most are advertising spam. Remove them and you will be in the lower single figures.
Four- there is no such thing as obligatory nudity- exceptions are always made for those accompanied by a genuine naturist- medical reasons- shynesss- age. Anyone who has been to any site would realise- anyone who hasn't and views nudity with suspicion makes up wild fantasies such as this.

It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that we only report on what exist- this basically doesn't. It is a fundamental principle of wikipedia that we demand notable secondary sources- this doesn't. I reserve the right when bored to remove broken links and primary sources and blank sections. Just delete -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising spam? Most naturist web sites have only a handful of pages. I linked to whichever page that stated nudity is obligatory (usually the rules and regulations or code of conduct page). Just because they're a business, and a few people make their living in the naturism industry does not in any way make it spam. Yes, some web sites change from time to time and modify their links, and I try to catch them. However, I don't have time to do this on a daily or even weekly basis. If someone notifies me of a problem on a citation link, I fix it. DNBR (talk) 15:39, 25 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. After more than a month and two relistings, it doesn't look as though a consensus is emerging. No prejudice against renominating at any time. Deor (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser P. Seitel[edit]

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

Out of the citations provided 1 is self-published, 2 is a brief mention, 3 is primary and 4 is gibberish. It is very rare for a PR executive to truly be notable enough for a page, save for people like Scott Cutlip, Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, and the CEOs at the top 10 or so PR firms. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was contemplating nominating this for deletion myself, but CorporateM (who by the way is a subject-matter expert) got there before me. I originally became aware of this article when I combed out a strange bit of promotion from David Rockefeller[52], which indicated that either the article subject or someone closely associated was spamming the project. Article history indicates that it has been beset by puffery and COI editing for years, and I'm surprised it has lasted this long. Fails WP:BIO, as media appearances and textbook authorship do not rise to the level of notability. He is in the media representing this guy or that, but so do thousands of other PR people. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm here by way of Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but I think for his level of engagement with academia (adjunct who mostly does other stuff) WP:GNG is more relevant than WP:PROF. But there are no in-depth reliable sources independent of the subject that would make a case for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He does have a highly cited book. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
But despite six years of trying, beginning with the SPA that created this article and right up through the present with a three-year-old account that calls him "Mr.," it still doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Book is "widely cited by peers" per AUTHOR #1. According to this New York Times article "Fraser Seitel, author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations". According to Seitel's own information: "Two hundred colleges and universities have selected his outstanding text" [for use in classroom] and while there is no exact list of 200, Google shows a lot: "Practice of Public Relations" Seitel site:.edu. Also, PRWeek magazine once said: "..instructors include Fraser Seitel and Helio Fred Garcia, both authors of widely used PR textbooks."[53] He also served as a "family spokesman" (PR agent) for the Rockefeller and Astor families, which is not inherently notable but a search of NY Times shows a ton of mentions. NOTINHERIT is an essay, sometimes people are notable for being in a position that garners them a lot of press exposure. All of these things I believe adds up to notability. -- GreenC 03:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WorldCat holdings for his 3 books are 963, 431, 988, which is a statistical pass for PROF c1. The article may need work, but I think he passes. Agricola44 (talk) 20:52, 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 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being the spokesperson for a notable family does grant some press, however it boils down to Spokesperson Fraser P. Seitel said this... which is not significant coverage of Seitel, he is just the messenger. The discussion is leaning to a delete/no consensus, however given the COI issues, and the fact it is a BLP, I would consider a no consensus to default to delete in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times says "Fraser Seitel, author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations", he is cited as an expert by his peers based on that alone, plus he is regularly on Fox News channel as an expert in his field. A lot of colleges must use his book for it to be the largest selling textbook on public relations. Dream Focus 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to have significant coverage of notability as an academic Author. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Times article is about Howard J. Rubenstein, and only gives a single passing mention, one clause of one sentence of an article. This is s textbook case of failing WP:42 if I ever saw one. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:42 is an essay that many of us find poorly represents consensus. For example 42 requires "no passing mentions", but the guideline WP:SIGCOV doesn't say "passing mentions" (a pejorative phrase). Significance can be a single sentence so long as it shows there is notability (eg. "author of the largest-selling college textbook on public relations"). It's what is being said not the number of words or focus of the source. -- GreenC 20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD SPACKlick (talk) 09:03, 15 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Not sure this meets the criteria outlined in WP:BIO, but it does have scant sources that makes one believe there might be some notability. i do agree with one of the above editors that simply being a mouthpiece for others does not make you a good subject for inclusion. So delete or keep I am not going to jump up and down about with this article.--Canyouhearmenow 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Astounding there has been this much discussion about the merits of the article, initiated from a prejudice that a Public Relations person is not likely to be notable. PR people are good at getting names in the news, including their own names, that's their job function. So you have to look around the edges and its not always easy. But seriously this has been at AfD for a month and nobody took to google? A page of complaining and adding "Delete" but nobody tried to add a source? I added four new sources, showing this guy is a visible pundit, including Larry King during his appearance on CNN (OK, that was hard to find because they misspelled his name) and even Fox News (who I don't regard as reliable but in this case, he's writing for them, which establishes he is notable enough of a pundit for them to let him have editorial space). Since he is a pundit, on TV, readers should be able to find the guy and find out who he is. Trackinfo (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After considering debate, notability not attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete, a lot has been made of his book supposedly being well respected enough to make Seitel notable, and while the mention in the NYT goes some way to confirming that, there doesn't seem to be the wide coverage of the book that I'd expect if it were actually a widely used text, just a bunch of PR fluff and promotional stuff. I'm not convinced at all, although he seems very good at self promotion, as you'd expect a PR expert to be. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:35, 26 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. The central problem is that several editors disagree on the criteria itself, typically seen as 2 or more articles from high quality sources where the coverage is significant, meaning more than a paragraph or two, and the person is the central theme of the article. Even being specific in that interpretation, one could argue (in good faith) as to what that means, and that is exactly what is happening. As such, I don't see a consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Gartner[edit]

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

As an aspiring amateur boxer she fails WP:NBOX. Being a media director for a rugby team does not grant notability nor does being the daughter of a rugby player (WP:NOTINHERITED). Also lacks the coverage to show she's notable for being a panelist on a sports talk show. Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that none of those things grant notability. What grants notability is non-trivial coverage in at least two reliable sources. Source 1, Source 2. I see they're already listed in the article so there's nothing more to do here. Keep —S Marshall T/C 17:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a shame that, except for the categories, the article doesn't even mention boxing. WP:GNG says significant coverage, does not give a number. Considering the pieces were primarily human interest and she has no notability as per the original nominator I don't think she meets WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't edit my comments, PRehse.—S Marshall T/C 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just put your Keep vote where it could be seen as per normal formatting. What's the problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll be seen at the end as well as the beginning. The closer will see it because they'll read the whole debate thoroughly. I chose to put the reasoning before the conclusion, because it's really the reasoning that matters.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Russel_Gartner Articles mentioned by those advocating the article be kept refer to her amateur boxing "career" of 2 fights. Certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Seems to have drawn interest because her dad was a famous rugby player, but notability is not inherited. Doesn't merit her own article but what about a redirect to her father's article? That article needs more sources, but at least a case can be made he's notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would think if we started creating redirects for close relatives to all biographies we'ld have an explosion.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because earlier article was incorrect in emphasis (and properly deserved being AfD-ed); she is not chiefly a boxer, nor a media coordinator, but essentially she's an Australian celebrity, TV presenter, model, etc who gets lots of write-ups down under, and plenty of attention. She's not notable for being the daughhter of a famous rugby player, or dating another celebrity, but these things add to her notability. Numerous in-depth independent WP:RS suggest she meets the GNG. Further, she's young, and the publicity will continue in all likelihood.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She's young with more to follow is not really a good argument but the re-write and additional references are. I shifted my vote back to plain comment.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article and sources have been improved since the original nomination, but I still don't think she meets WP:GNG. Mentions are generally passing, but they all include something like "daughter of rugby great Russel Gartner". It seems her notability chiefly rests on who her father is, but there's enough mentions of her that I'd advocate for a redirect instead of outright deletion--although I still don't think there's enough there for her to merit her own article. She fails the notability criteria for models and entertainers (WP:ENT), as well as those for boxers (WP:NBOX) since 2 amateur wins is obviously insufficient. Her own bio at the online sports talk show where she's one of a number of panelists (besides the cohosts) fails to support notability.[54] Arguing that she's young and will get more publicity is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I think she meets the GNG, in having multiple independent in-depth sources, such as this entire article and seven paragraphs featured prominently about her and this full article about her boxing, plus this article is mostly about her. It is a rather gutsy stunt for a celebrity, to go into the ring to box for charity, particularly when celebrities are all about being beautiful, and boxing could put beauty in peril. This article puts her romance with Wallaby Quade front and center. So my problem is trying to understand your phrase 'mentions are generally passing', when it seems that in at least four sources, perhaps five, in substantial Australian media, she is the subject of the article or prominently featured within it, not just the daughter of a former rugby star. Last, if she meets GNG, she doesn't have to meet WP:ENT or WP:NBOX, with the specific guideline being 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.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we have a different view of what makes significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Let's look at the sources you mentioned--the first is a fashion blog where she was asked a few questions at an event sponsored by the team where she's media coordinator, the second is a sports gossip column which deems her worthy of coverage because of her father (and that she had a second amateur boxing bout), the third announces her first fight as an amateur, and the final one is the epitome of a passing mention (it's about her new boy friend and another mention of her father). Announcements of upcoming fights and merely stating sports results are generally considered routine coverage and fail to meet GNG requirements. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That fashion piece was seen by hundreds of thousands of Australians, men and women, maybe even millions, has influenced countless purchase decisions, trends in apparel, what women buy or think as being sexy. It may seem uninteresting to us guys but can be highly important to women who shop for clothes, that is, almost all women. About her choice of boxing to raise money for a charity: it can improve the visibility of the charity tremendously, leading to further donations and exposure; in addition, an-on-air media personality, boxing, expands the sense of what women can do and what TV people can do as well. In one sense, it is a stunt, but in another, it expands the idea of what women are capable of in the sporting world. As far as I know, it is the first instance of a TV celebrity becoming an amateur boxer to raise $$. About being born into a rugby family was helpful in getting her career started (aren't parents helpful to all of us, getting started in the world?) but clearly she is making a name for herself, she is not only daughter of the rugby player. Last, see S Marshall's claim below; notable is notable; it is not up to individuals to selectively determine what subjects we like and which we don't; I will agree that much of the pop culture world is fluff, but it is highly influential fluff at that, like it or not, but deleting every pop culture topic would violate Wikipedia's rules which the community has worked hard, through much consensus, to develop over time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see much unsupported hyperbole in this comment. "Millions" of people seeing this article would mean every man, woman, and child in the region read it and the claim that a few offhand comments influenced "countless purchase decisions" needs supporting evidence. Your claim that she's the first celebrity to box for charity also seems unlikely. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This photo of Renee Gartner modelling evening apparel was in Perth Now, the online version of The Sunday Times, with circulation numbers ranging from 257,000 to 425,000 depending on how long the story ran. This influences purchases and fashion sensibility; it says to women readers, wanting to dress up, that this is one way to do it. It is what is in style. Maybe us Wikipedians (mostly older guys) don't care that much about women's fashion, but it is an important subject for many people. About the first woman celebrity to box: that's offhand knowledge, from memory, just that I can't think of any on-air female personality that has done that; it was new to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't "count" towards notability. Editors have started to use "notable" to mean "a worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write an article", and we need to kill that off. Let's be clear here: notability isn't an encyclopaedic concept. You can bet that the editors of Britannica aren't sitting around obsessing about notability! It's purely a product of Wikipedian culture and it exists only because of our open editing environment. The meaning of "notability" is simple and simplistic and it's quite clear from the GNG: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source. That's it. The reason why it's so simplistic is to provide us with an objective test which was meant to cut through these endless, circular notability debates. This lady passes it, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments offered by other debate participants, the alternative view that the sources somehow don't "count" is quite untenable.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is, at best, disingenuous. Do you really believe that Britannica editors don't consider the notability of the subjects they choose for inclusion? I already stated that others views of what constitutes significant independent coverage in reliable sources may differ from mine, but we're all entitled to our opinion. I still prefer a merge/redirect to her father's article, but this may well be a case of someone "being famous for being famous". I'm old school and believe that notability requires being notable for something (good or bad), but that can be considered a personal bias of mine. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my position is an "argument". It's a fairly uncontroversial statement of what notability meant when it was devised. In origin, notability's not an encyclopaedic concept, it's a tool for detecting and eliminating marketing spam. I don't believe the editors of any paper encyclopaedia including Britannica ever think about notability (but then they wouldn't have articles on Australian boxers' daughters very often either, of course). I think the idea that notability requires being notable for something is tautological; but I suspect you mean notable for an achievement of some kind, don't you? If so, that's a very new school idea that only surfaced in the last three years or so.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall and wanted to add what I consider to be one of the reasons behind the notability rule. If notability depended upon what particular Wikipedians considered to be "an achievement", there would be much debate about what these supposed achievements were; if that happened, then we would all become quasi-editors of Wikipedia constantly embroiled in brouhaha discussions about whether this celebrity or that was notable. But instead, by keeping the notability rule simple, clean as ice, it lessens bickering among Wikipedians, and lets real editors, who work for magazines, TV shows, publishing houses, and so forth, pick and choose what they think is important. The system works. Real editors think Renee Gartner is ink-worthy, pixel-worthy, a person of note.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Marshall, I do mean notable as in having achieved something. This is not a new idea, except perhaps on WP. This has been the normal way of looking at things for generations. User tomwsulcer, it's actually the criteria for the various projects that are usually clear, not the more nebulous "significant coverage" criteria of the GNG. Specific criteria like competing for a world title or competing at the Olympics are far less open to interpretation. I would note that she meets none of these, hence our discussion about the significance of certain coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trouble with relying on someone's achievements is that we have, and ought to have, articles on people whose achievements amount to not being very good at ski-jumping, getting married to the right person or being born. I'm afraid the idea that someone needs worthy achievements does not, in my view, withstand comparison with Wikipedia's real needs and practices.

    In my work in our deletion review pages, I've come to dislike specific notability guidelines for two reasons. First because any small group of editors can come up with a SNG and some of them are bizarre or wildly inconsistent, and secondly because categorising people according to their job needs so many exceptions. A certain fashion designer fails WP:CREATIVE... Finally, I don't think there's any ambiguity or openness to interpretation in the GNG. Either there's non-trivial coverage or there isn't; either there are two sources or there aren't; either the sources are reliable or they aren't. These debates would be very simple if we could just take the GNG at face value.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • S Marshall (talk · contribs), I completely agree with your perceptive comments about how "In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't 'count' towards notability."

    In my view, if a topic passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, then the subject-specific notability guidelines do not need to be considered because the subject is already notable. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 23 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, NorthAmerica1000 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG, article just needs to expanded. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Lots of passing mentions just long enough to justify the inclusion of an eye-candy picture but no real substance. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Krums[edit]

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

Non notable. WP:ONEEVENT, which is not even mentioned on either the Twitter article of the Miracle on the Hudson article. This article is borderline promotional, as apart from the mention of the one event it is all about his businesses. He does not appear to be notable as a businessman. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've deleted the part about his businesses and only left the Miracle on the Hudson and Twitter. His photo is linked on the page in the External Links: Krūms, Jānis (January 15, 2009). "There's a plane in the Hudson. I'm on the ferry going to pick up the people. Crazy". TwitPic. Timjones34 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC) •[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I declined a speedy on this bio, but I agree with the nominator that this is basically a WP:BLP1E and the article was written in a way that seemed to attempt to capitalize on the 15 minutes of fame to promote the person's current business ventures. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Stryn (talk) 19:43, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Lövheim[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since Dec 2011, this article is an orphan. Non notable IMO, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMICS Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. GS h-index of ~ 10. Quite good for religion. Some dead links. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. Fortunately she did a postdoc at Oslo, so the Norwegian search engine, Kvasir, picked her up. There are several academic discussions of her work plus a smattering of short treatments of it in newspapers. I was able to fill out her career and research foci a little. In addition, she edited a book published by Routledge in 2013. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:02, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Diamonds[edit]

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

Non notable IMO, nothing in article indicates notability Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. To be honest, I forgot this article was still up...I agree, they did turn out to be quite non-notable (they never played a game), so that means it's OK to delete. And per G7 of CSD, it can be speedy deleted. Tom Danson (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete At creator's request per WP:G7, or for failure to make a statement of the subject's importance per WP:A7. In all events, subject clearly fails notability guidelines per WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:14, 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 keep. Of note is that in the process of closing this discussion I performed a page move, renaming the article to Moratuwa Sports Club per commentary herein. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moratuwa Cricket Club[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Not a notable cricket club/team as it is only a club. No indication that the club plays in regional or national tournaments that might make it notable Gbawden (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article states the team has played at First Class level, so that passes WP:CRIN - "all clubs and teams taking part in major cricket matches are automatically qualified under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/rename to Moratuwa Sports Club, which has been a first-class cricket club, hence notable under WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lodtag[edit]

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

Not notable IMO. Don't believe he meets WP:CRIN in that although he played a first class match he only played for a club side, not a provincial or regional side Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First-class cricketer, hence notable under WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If CRIN says that cricketers who played in a first-class match are notable, then we can't go saying that a particular match isn't really first-class, even though it was categorised as such by the appropriate cricket governing body. The whole point is to have a clear, non-ambiguous criterion. JH (talk page) 15:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Depth of coverage is virtually nil. Despite technically meeting subject-specific criteria, not all "notable" subjects are guaranteed a standalone article. Hack (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First-class cricketer, be it for a Sri Lankan province or club, makes no difference! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. How many more times? First-class cricketer who meets WP:CRIN. Entirely agree with comments by JH above. Jack | talk page 18:48, 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 keep. Several of the delete !vote rationales (including the nomination) have been countered with the provision of sources herein and those added to the article, along with copy edits that have occurred to the article after the time of the AfD nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heap pollution[edit]

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

The article is not new, but is not yet complete enough to call a stub. It neither defines the meaning of heap pollution nor asserts notability. It should probably be moved to an incubator. Dfeuer (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Zero sources = original research. A few searches do not reveal any sources that can save it. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It only defines the term (although not in a way that makes any sense to me) it does not explain the importance or significance of "heap pollution." By WP:Not a dictionary this article does not belong in WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge into Generics in Java). This is a common technical problem (it is a FAQ) that crops up with generic (parametrized) types in Java. I added a ref verifying the definition. I have not been able to find multiple in-depth RS, so the topic seems to fail notability guidelines per WP:GNG. According to WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, merging of verifiable material is preferred to deletion. It seems appropriate to merge it into a section in the Generics in Java article. Update: Changing recommendation to keep following Lesser Cartographies' nice RS finds and AioftheStorm's article improvements. --Mark viking (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No attempt is made to comply with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at WP:GNG or otherwise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I was able to track down the following sources: Two page description in the Java Language Specification,[1]. Half-page discussion with code sample in Beginning Java.[2] Two page discussion with code sample in Java 7 New Features Cookbook.[3] 19 hits in the primary literature, including an extensive discussion in Stenzel 2008[4] (certainly WP:PRIMARY and very little in the way of citation counts, but this does establish the term exists outside of Java programming manuals). I doubt this will ever hit WP:GA status, but (in my opinion) there are enough WP:RS to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Gosling, James; Joy, Bill; Steele, Guy; Bracha, Gilad; Buckley, Alex (2014). "4.12.2". The Java Language Specification, Java SE 8 Edition. Addison-Wesley. pp. 81–82. ISBN 978-0-13-390069-9.
  2. ^ Friesen, Jeff (2011). Beginning Java 7. Expert's voice in Java. Apress. p. 211. ISBN 1430239093.
  3. ^ Reese, Richard; Reese, Jennifer (2012). Java 7 New Features Cookbook (PDF). Packt Publishing. pp. 38–40. ISBN 978-1-84968-562-7.
  4. ^ Stenzel, Kurt; Grandy, Holger; Reif, Wolfgang (2008). "Verification of Java Programs with Generics". Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (PDF). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5140. pp. 315–329. ISBN 978-3-540-79979-5.(subscription required)
  • Keep: I have edited the article so that heap pollution is defined and feel it now qualifies as a stub and should be kept as normal editing can improve this article, and its notability is established due to being discussed in the sources provided by Cartographies.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lesser Cartographies: the subject is indeed worth encyclopedic coverage as demonstrated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments in favour of deletion appear to just be article quality concerns that have now been partially dealt with by editing. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 22 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. Michig (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar 4[edit]

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

The film has not entered production or even produced a script yet. Koala15 (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. We don't know if the film is even going to come to fruition, so it's definitely too soon for a page. However, I think this information could find a place on the Madagascar (2005 film) article. Bali88 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing in the article that isn't already covered in Madagascar (franchise). Sources give a release date of May 18, 2018 but with no info on shooting starting etc. Thereby too soon for its own article as a future film.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 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 no consensus. I could relist this as the article has changed since the nom was made, including sources, but with mixed opinions, a No Consensus that defaults to keep is just as effective. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop soul[edit]

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

I hate to nominate this article because this is my favorite kind of music to listen to, but...after a thorough Gsearch, I couldn't find any proof that "hip hop soul" is actually a genre. Moreover, as stated on the talk page, the two sources in the article only refer to the photo of Mary J. Blige in the article, not the subject of the article itself. (A similar discussion occurred about "piano rock".) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything of value here that could be merged into another page, such as R&B? --Dfeuer (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There might be; the problem is, the article is pretty much all original research. And it's not that I don't agree with some of the points in the article, but, well, OR just doesn't fly. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Change to Delete I can't find any sources either. If anyone is saavy enough to come up with additional sources, I'll vote to keep, if not, I suggest that we merge this with R&B and the big list at the bottom could be organized via a "hip hop soul" category Bali88 (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article is adequately sourced now that freddie has rewritten it. I think it's in keepable shape. Bali88 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't know about keeping that list either, because it seems like random users are just popping in and listing their favorite artist(s) who might be considered "hip hop soul". Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources at the bottom are not available online; does anyone have access to them? CorporateM (Talk) 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't? That isn't a good sign... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that not "a good sign"? There is no Wikipedia policy that printed books are not a valid source, and if there were, it would be ridiculous. Either look through the diffs and determine who the editor was who added the references and contact them, or go hunt down a copy of the book someplace if you feel the need to verify it for this AfD. You cannot write an encyclopedia by only depending upon online sources; that is part of the issue with why so many Wikipedia articles are either limited in scope (and long on fluff) or incorrect.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's probably the best solution. Bali88 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article and the genre is notable too. 12.125.194.242 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back that up? I think just about all of us are willing to vote to keep with additional proof of notability via sources. Bali88 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are innumerable proper references (The Vibe History of Hop Hop has an entire chapter on hip-hop soul) that explain the history of hip hop soul and its distinctions from contemporary R&B and new jack swing (you gonna nominate that article too?). The problem is most of them are in actual books, something I know a lot of editors avoid. Be that as it may, quite a few usable internet resources turn up by running a search such as follows: "hip hop soul" "mary j blige" tlc. "hip hop soul" "blackstreet" or "hip hop soul" "jodeci" or "hip hop soul" "missy elliott" works as well (adding the key artists to the search results in finding the proper references - you're looking for music journalism). The term originated in promotion by Uptown Records for Mary J. Blige's first album (the same way Jerry Wexler made up the term rhythm and blues), but the style of music itself as evolved from new jack swing is its own distinct subgenre. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the notability of the subject matter itself, but there is a heavy amount of OR here. Most of the entire final paragraph is a personal essay. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has been written and sourced to establish validity and notability. More in-depth revisions to the body can be made after I get home and get out my copy of the Vibe book. If I can find enough references elsewhere to cover it, the article should be expanded to explain how hip-hop soul essentially usurped contemporary R&B and today (in 2014, not in 1994) basically describes what R&B is today.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've rewritten the article, including references. There is room for growth and expansion, but this should be enough for now. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. Thanks for doing that. Bali88 (talk) 14:31, 23 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 Deepak Chopra. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopra foundation[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and so fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Merge' (back to) Deepak Chopra. Even though not necessarily notable, it has (and probably deserves) coverage there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, Delete and Redirect. It appears to fail notability (hence keeping is not a legitimate option), and there is nothing here which should be there and isn't already there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable promotional article first due to lack of notability. Next Redirect to Deepak Chopra (or appropriate section). If anything is worth Merging it can be merged into Deepak Chopra. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. The foundation is not the subject of multiple in-depth works. CorporateM (Talk) 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it or pare down Legal matters about the Chopra Foundation have been covered at length in the New York Post, board members of the Chopra Foundation have been covered on Marketwired, the Huffington Post has covered both the Chopra Foundation's SBTI and Sages & Scientists programs, and the IRS & Guidestar both cover the Chopra Foundation's financials. Whether they include some primary sources of affiliated charities or not, there are 20 sources for this article, including the 6 above. This is a foundation, founded by someone highly notable, that generates nearly $1 million a year and is involved with numerous programs. It can be pared down if necessary, but there's more than enough material to warrant an article. The Cap'n (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NYT piece does not "address the topic directly and in detail" as GNG requires. Neither even do the HuffPo blog posts you mention. As for a press release, a search result from the IRS and a business directory listing ... seriously? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MarketWired appears to be a press release. Huffington post is co-authored by the founder of the foundation himself. IRS is basically original research or primary at best. I don't know what Guidestar is. The sources that are acceptable are focused on Chopra himself, not the foundation, therefore we should follow suite. CorporateM (Talk) 08:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the majority of the sources focus on Chopra, the fact that he is more notable does not necessarily make the foundation not notable. I also think it's highly relevant to point out that regardless of authorship, the two Huffington Post articles discuss, in depth, the two main projects of the Chopra Foundation, SBTI and Sages and Scientists. Articles detailing the activities/projects of a foundation are certainly discussing the foundation's specifics. Likewise, the NY Post piece dealt specifically with the legal affairs of the Chopra Foundation, with which Walsh was formerly affiliated and from whom he allegedly redirected funds. I've got numerous news sources detailing the activities of the foundation, a reputable, independent news piece discussing legal matters of the foundation, and a mountain of primary sources (not as good as the secondaries, but still admissible in conjunction) establishing a scope of activities. Leaving aside the contentious nature of the founder, this seems like more than enough to meet GNG for an average starter article. The Cap'n (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The reliable sources are about Chopra, not the foundation. We need 'Significant coverage' per WP:GNG, and this isn't it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Gaba[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Probably could have PROD'd this one. CorporateM (Talk) 08:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources in the article show no coverage of the subject and the article is garbage - if any notability could be demonstrated in the future it would need a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The AfD notice has been removed from the article several times by an IP and the comments of other editors here have also been edited by an IP. I have reverted both. --Michig (talk) 09:54, 22 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisal Gangodage[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barring better refs, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisal Gangodage is an a well known audio Engineer in Sri Lanka , I have provided enough reference links , Please feel free to do a Google or Youtube search if you users want more details. Before reoprting it for deletion, please do a research and if you want more details i m happy to provided it to you .Meanwhile this is his Company show reel link The Audio Lab Studios Company Showreel

Documentary Video s about Nisal Gangodage.

A word with a music producer ( Nisal Gangodage )

Nisal Gangodage With Sirasa Looks Like ( Pickles Movie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisalgangodage (talk • contribs) 05:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the sources, the only one that would potentially count as a reliable source is Ceylon Today, and that's an interview, which is not third-party. The article in the Sunday Leader Online doesn't even mention the subject! Search isn't bringing up anything of note, mostly social networking and music merchandising sites, and a very, very thin IMDB page. Not to mention the article is a flagrant WP:COI: the article starter and primary editor is User:Nisalgangodage. Who, I should note, was outed by SineBot as commenting about himself in the third person above. — Gwalla | Talk 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also appears as obvious WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would question, based on the Editor's username, Nisalgangodage, whether there might be a WP:COI here. Dan arndt (talk) 04:03, 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 Delete and Salt. Once the canvassed users and single-purpose accounts are stripped away, and based on the previous discussion from only a few weeks ago, I think there's a clear consensus to delete this article and lock the title so that it cannot be recreated without some form of community review first occurring. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Shadows[edit]

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

I declined speedy deletion as a repost, as the given references are not all primary sources, which was the complaint of the first AfD. That being said. This software has a very weak claim to notability at best. It is still in development and while the sources given are not primary, they are still for the most part weak. Blogs and industry publications and several of the sources have very little on the subject. Delete and salt (temporarily, not permanently), perhaps six months or so. Wait for this to hit the market and try again. Safiel (talk) 02:11, 15 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) 02:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what salt means in this context. That said, I could have beefed the article up with references from more Sega related websites but at the moment WP:VG/RS does not have a single reference for Sega or Dreamcast by that logic Sega and Dreamcast are not notable altogether for example Sega endorsed blogs like Sega Nerds and Sega Bits who have actually made numerous posts on the subject are not considered reliable. Dozens of indie game websites that have covered the game and interviewed the developers are not considered reliable. The game has been in development for 7 years and their YouTube channel has almost 10,000 followers how is that not notable?
Extended content

Nonetheless, I have not used any of that information and I have constructed the almost entirely from Wikipedia's custom google search. Here are the references I have used:

  • MCVUK news post is based on the press release, that is what press releases are for. We rejected Gamasutra last time because they had essentially copy pasted the press release MCVUK on the other hand has reworded and summarized it.
  • Destructoid: I found this through the custom google search and it certainly isn't based on any press release.
  • IndieGames: We already agreed this was good, but on it's own it was insufficient. Well I waited and found quite a few more references.
  • GamersHell: What is a listing? Do you mean a gamepage? It does look like a listing however it is categorized as news. In either case we discussed problems with copy pasting press releases. If a notable website has made a listing/game page for it, why is that a bad thing?
    • If it is a bad thing then I would just have to delete Game Revolution.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every single sentence in the article is reinforced by multiple references.

Also note the games Kickstarter is scheduled to go live in a matter of weeks and it would automatically be at the height of it's popularity. Additionally the development team has already announced on their Facebook page that they will be on the ocver of indie games magazine for August. As far as retro indie games are concerned they don't get anymore notable than Elysian Shadows.

If you look at my Wikipedia history, I have almost single handedly created articles for all Dreamcast games released in the past 5 years. So I can tell a notable game apart from something that isn't.

One last thing the Admin "Slakr" the one who deleted the page did it without participating in the discussion. We were actively discussing the situations and we were all adding references and Slakr came and deleted the article. I requested him multiple times to atleast give me the transcript of the original article but he simply ignored me. Maybe an Admin should note that sort of behavior.

--Cube b3 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to your last comment, I will address other issues later. Generally, the administrator (or in some cases a non-admin who closes a discussion) should NOT have participated in the discussion. The idea is that the closing editor does NOT have a stake in the outcome. Safiel (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Sorry, Cube b3, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It's possible this product will become notable in the future but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources offered rises to the level of reliable independent and secondary as required by WP:GNG. What we have is a mishmash composed mostly of unreliable blog sites reporting breathlessly about a product that does not exist. The one page that's not a blog is the university page, but they're not independent given the relationship with the author as one of their students. There's just not enough here to establish notability, which is our only concern at AfD. Recommend the article be No objection if the article is WP:USERFIED until appropriate sources become available. Msnicki (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same reasons as the last AFD. Not nearly enough has been changed from the last one, and the last AFD wasn't that long ago. I would have speedy deleted it had I gotten to it first. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
I do not understand how references hand picked from WP:VG/RS via the wikipedia's custom search engine for approved reliable and situational references. I just don't understand it. I keep reading the word blog but I have not used blogs MCVUK, indiegames.com (Gamasutra's indie site), Game Revolution, and GamersHell are not blogs. Just read the Wikipedia page if you can't bother to check out the website. The only blog I have used is Destructoid who have written a fantastic article on the game. Did any of you even bother to read it?

4 out of 7 are not blogs and are approved reliable reference.

Only 1 out of 7 is a blog and it is an approved situational reference and if anybody uses the Custom Google search for situational reference you will easily find several more from websites like Giant Bomb who have written quite a bit on the game but I only used Destructoid cause I really enjoyed reading that article.

So that makes 5 of 7 approved reference.

I asked Wiki Admin Czar before using University of Alabama at Huntsville as a reference and he told me it was fine. It is an incredibly detailed article if anyone has bothered to read it. You are welcome to check Czar's talk page and the only reason UAH is not on WP:VG/RS is because it is an academic website and not a gaming one, so the fact that such a prestigious institution acknowledges the video games existence and invites the developer to come and give a presentation says a hell of a lot about the games notability.

So that makes 6 out of 7 approved references.

The only one that isn't approved is DCS which is funny cause each and every Dreamcast indie game article I have read already uses it or the quoted reference is using DCS as a reference nonetheless, DCS so far has not been approved I still have 6 references.

Lastly, as I stated earlier it has already been announced that the game will be covered in print on Indie Games Magazine for August. So in addition to having several online not only do we have reliable websites we also have print magazines.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article coming out in August is not very helpful in July. Msnicki (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is if you know it is coming and from who. Wikipedia has a ton of respect for the print medium.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it's actually in print. Sources that don't yet exist don't count. (Also, as explained at WP:REDACT, you should try to avoid editing your comment after it's already been replied to.) Msnicki (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I was actually editing before you had replied... oh well. I can copy paste it here as well

4 out of 7 are not blogs and are approved reliable reference.

Only 1 out of 7 is a blog and it is an approved situational reference and if anybody uses the Custom Google search for situational reference you will easily find several more from websites like Giant Bomb who have written quite a bit on the game but I only used Destructoid cause I really enjoyed reading that article.

So that makes 5 of 7 approved reference.

I asked Wiki Admin Czar before using University of Alabama at Huntsville as a reference and he told me it was fine. It is an incredibly detailed article if anyone has bothered to read it. You are welcome to check Czar's talk page and the only reason UAH is not on WP:VG/RS is because it is an academic website and not a gaming one, so the fact that such a prestigious institution acknowledges the video games existence and invites the developer to come and give a presentation says a hell of a lot about the games notability.

So that makes 6 out of 7 approved references.

The only one that isn't approved is DCS which is funny cause each and every Dreamcast indie game article I have read already uses it or the quoted reference is using DCS as a reference nonetheless, DCS so far has not been approved I still have 6 references.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep The article has been sourced with information from at least 6 different reliable independent secondary sources, where this piece of software has received significant coverage. The software in question certainly doesn't seem that it should be covered in some other article. Based on that, it seems to meet the burden for WP:GNG. Ljsdcdev (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Ljsdcdev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Extended content
Gamer and other enthusiast websites are usually considered WP:QUESTIONABLE because they lack the necessary reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I am stuck on a merry go round. As I have repeatedly stated the article has been made with reliable secondary references. So exactly what facts need to be checked because at this point it just feels like collective discrimination against Sega.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the page stated, the references appear sound and certainly don't all constitute enthusiast websites. Sure, the reference from Dreamcast-Scene certainly would qualify as an enthusiast site, the other references seem (on the whole to be) quite reputable as far as gaming-related press goes. I wouldn't go as far to say that it is collective discrimination against Sega, but it does seem like there is something amiss here. Ljsdcdev (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to double down and say that there is discrimination.
That's a ludicrous assumption to jump to, especially coming from a person who didn't even know that uninvolved editors/admin are supposed to close deletion discussions. Wouldn't it be more likely that you don't seem to understand the prospect of reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense for there to be "discrimination" towards a decade old electronics device... Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A brief history of everything has been done thus far

The original page was created via primary references.

Admins: This page is not meeting Wikipedia standards because it uses primary references. Let's delete this WP:TOOSOON

Fans: They have almost 10,000 followers on our YouTube channel nonetheless good point lets add some secondary references. We present references most notably from Sega Nerds, Sega Bits and a bunch of other websites.

Admins: Yeah, these references aren't good enough please use something from WP:VG/RS

Fans: Ummm... there are no Sega or Dreamcast websites on the list?

Admins: Yes, none of them are good enough refer to [[WP:VG/RS#Fansites.

Fans: Sega Nerds is a reliable source it is endorsed by Sega and the editor in chief is a professional journalist. He makes his living writing on video games.

Admins: .... (ignores)

Fans: Hey, I found a couple of references from the list that work.

Admins: Indiegames.com is good, Gamasutra is good but they have only shared the press release so that's not good.

Fans: Doesn't it count for something if an approved site is sharing their press release? In either case, we'll avoid press releases. Let us find better references.

Admins: Deletes the page.

Fans: WTF?

I personally contact "SLAKR"; the Admin who deleted the page multiple times, humbly requesting the transcript of the original page. To this date he has never even acknowledged any message I have left him. So for the next 2 weeks I worked with Czar; whom I considered a decent Admin. He helped out taught me how to write better articles. He asked me to work on other Sega articles and I did.

In one of our discussions about searching for games that meet the Wiki requirements he referred me towards the custom google search that Wiki uses to validate articles. I look up Elysian Shadows and find over 10 pages in results. I siff through them and rewrite an entirely new article from scratch and present it to Czar and he nominates it for deletion again. I am like what the ****?

Despite the fact that I did not have a single Sega website on the list of approved references I was able to create the page, each and every single sentence on the article has been reinforced by multiple references.

This is discrimination and several Sega fans have left Wikipedia altogether because of such attitudes.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to participate at an AfD, please try to follow the simple formatting rules explained at WP:THREAD. Msnicki (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for sharing that link. It had a nice video so I watched that. I just added headings to the preceding discussion to make it easier to follow. Did not find anything against adding headings. I feel that they were important because I was effectively stating the same thing for the third time without getting an adequate rationalization. Instead of responding to the topic at hand you respond to something irrelevant like formatting.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Why is an article composed entirely from references that are approved, fact checked, notable and reliable. Still being considered for deletion?--Cube b3 (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article was so recently deleted due to a consensus that it was failing the GNG, and your newly created article is still in terrible shape. Many of the sources are not reliable (Gamers Hell) or barely cover the topic in much detail ("Game Revolution" - which is a few sentences of a database entry). Also, your massive, rambling responses are not helping, if anything they're scaring people away from contributing because there's too much to sort through. (Also, I'd like to point out that Czar is not an Admin, not that it would make a difference in your arguments - he alone doesn't have the ability to definitively declare a source useable by themselves, admin or not.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the page is not written very well but in my defense I spent all my energy on finding references and wrote the page adhering to the references I had. I could have written a better page (like the original one) by using primary references however I felt best to establish notability before working on quality.

As for the references I am getting tired of discussing them over and over. Let's just discuss the two that you mentioned; honestly, I had never heard of GamersHell as well but it showed up in the custom search. So don't blame me, if you are an Admin then please go ahead and check why it is showing up in the custom search. Second, the Game Revolution reference is exclusively used to reinforce the games storyline section in that regard it is adequate. I also realized that the GR page looked a little thin so in addition to GR, I reinforced the storyline section with 2 other references.

I understand what you mean my rambling but I am afraid we are stuck with circular reasoning

Admins: References are not good.

Me: They are taken from list of good references.

Admins: They don't cover the topic in detail.

Me: They adequately cover the sentence, that they are used as a reference for.

Best Regards--Cube b3 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your excuse is "I didn't have time to write it well, I was too busy looking for sources", that just reinforces one of the main concerns at this AFD, that it was too soon to recreate this... Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sergecross, I never said I don't have time. I just said I wrote an article where every sentence would be reinforced with references. I view this as delection and not concentrating on the issue. We were talking about Game Revolution and you did not acknowledge or talk about what I said on that subject. More over how come an Admin never looks at what is wrong with Wikipedia for example why is GamersHell showing up in the custom search if it isn't reliable?--Cube b3 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how you're supposed to write all articles - sourcing everything. If it looks rough because you could only include a little bit because that's all that sources are covering, that's probably evidence of a topic not receiving enough coverage to warrant an article. (And I'm not involved in creating the "Custom Searches". Take their errors up with them.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross I just went through WP:VG/RS and GamersHell is on the check list. So I don't need to take it up with anyone. Perhaps we should work on improving the article and availability of Sega references rather than waste our energy over here. We have to assume good faith, so how about you put some faith in me and my contributions. It is possible that there is a problem with Wikipedia, if no Sega website is on the list of approved references.
I have read and reread the GNG and other pages that I have been linked too. I request that you independently review the integrity of the content on Sega fan sites such as www.seganerds.com, then read the case I have made for it over here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

Sega Nerds alone has done sufficient coverage on Elysian Shadows along with hundreds of other games that have weak pages on Wikipedia. If you contribute towards making a fantastic site like that one or www.sega-16.com approved on that list, not only will we be able to fix Elysian Shadows page but so many others as well. If not, it is only a matter of days. It is confirmed that Elysian Shadows is the COVER game of Indie Game Magazine which is a print source as well as an approved source through that I would be able to flesh out the page.

Best Regards,--Cube b3 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Nerds and Sega Bits do not meet Wikipeda's definition of a reliable source. Your magazine isnt out yet. Sure, it could get a review at IGN too, but you can't count on sources that don't exist yet. "GamersHell" is still on the checklist, and not the main list, because there hasn't been much of a consensus to deem it reliable. Read the linked discussion. They're pretty inconclusive. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please engage in the Sega Nerds discussion over there and I will see what I can do about that. As for Elysian Shadows, they just posted a few new interviews and sources on their Facebook page. I will have to siff through them and see if they are on the list.--Cube b3 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About that - in that discussion, you disclose you are a writer for Sega Nerds. It is a conflict of interest for you to be using it as a source on Wikipedia. Also, can't help but think that it's sketchy that the only person pushing for it to be used as a source here or at the other discussion, is someone who has close ties to the source itself... Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP If not notable per WP definition now it will become notable in less than two weeks with the launch of the game's Kickstarter campaign and subsequent press coverage: [announcement at YT] DCEvoCE (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DCEvoCE (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Extended content
From WP:NEXTBIGTHING, "there is probably no more useless argument for retention of an article than, "He's up-and-coming; They're gonna get bigger; If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous; It's a rising concept/meme/ideology; They show enormous potential; This could revolutionize the field." (except the lame "I made this vanity page for my girlfriend's birthday; just leave it up until then"). All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe it will become notable." It's also a rather blatant violation of our underlying policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Msnicki (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not only is the whole argument flawed, but the closing Admin is going to notice that all the "keeps" are just Sega enthusiasts coming in/being recruited to blindly defend their hobby. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think WP:SPA is the wrong link? but I concede to the point made by Msnicki. DCEvoCE (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You edit very infrequently, but when you do, it's to argue something Sega related. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I might have other things to do as well ? Anyway, I'm out. DCEvoCE (talk)
Gee, way to make a sweeping generalization about people who might happen to comment on this AfD. I'll admit that cube did indeed alert me outside of Wikipedia to the AfD for this article, but I still stand by what I've already said here. After all, who's likely to see and respond to this AfD other than those that are interested in the subject matter of the article? Dreamcast homebrew/indie games is a niche market to start with, but one that I feel is still notable. Yes, I participate in the Dreamcast homebrew community — I've been involved in the community for more than ten years now. At the same time, I wouldn't have commented here if I didn't feel that the article at least makes a reasonable attempt at establishing notability and informing those reading the article about the game that the article is about. I wouldn't (and didn't) come to the defense of the original article, which was not adequately sourced with secondary sources, much as I haven't done for other articles about Dreamcast homebrew that would fail that guideline for establishing notability. I'll also admit that the article could indeed use some additional work, but deleting it isn't going to get that work done. It'd be nice if we could talk about how to improve the article, rather than debating deleting it before said work could be completed. Ljsdcdev (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like your condemning me, but what you said proved exactly what I was saying. WP:CANVASSING off-Wiki is not okay, and recruiting like minded people to defend something based on your liking it is not how these discussions go. Likewise, "deleting an article, prematurely and sloppily recreating it, and then conceding its in bad shape but not wanting to delete it" is likewise not how things work either. But none of you know that because you're just here defending something you personally like rather than trying to build an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me something I am a Pakistani, in addition to Videogames, Music and Movies. I edit pages related to my own country. Should I not edit because I have a conflict of interest I am very passionate about my country and I want to archive it's notability. I may use History text books but none of those text books would be an approve list of sources. Further more I am a psychologist, I frequently edit in researches that I read and find very exciting.
I remember waaay back I introduced a professor of mine to Wikipedia and all his drive was to archive the history of his city > his town > his village. Do you think his contributions were compromised, do you think he had a conflict of interest. I also introduced another professor of mine only a few years back and given that she was a psychologist she always adds researches and theories to Wikipedia specifically those that were done by my university or her colleagues from other schools. Every Wikipedian I have come across (in the real world) has contributed towards something he or she was extremely passionate about. We call it passion, you call it conflict of interest.
My respect for you has started to increase and whether or not this page stays or goes, I would love to learn more from you just as I did with Czar but you have to help me see things your way, I have no interest or drive to edit things that I do not have a passion for. Hypothetically speaking had I been interested in the world cup I would feel like editing the wiki pages after seeing the game. But I am not interested in the world cup, I was interested in AiGD and after seeing the show and reading about it in dozens and dozens of website I felt it deserved a Wiki entry.
After creating this page I have realized most of the websites I visit for my gaming fix, aren't considered reliable. I was not always a writer on SegaNerds you know, the website has been around for a decade. I only started writing for them in the fall. Even if I am compromised, and I have a conflict of interest. You don't, you should be able to evaluate the website and it should stand on it's own merit. Czar made me read the criteria when I spoke about Sega-16, and then I nominated Sega Nerds just to see how the admins would respond to a site with professional journalists from the main stream gaming industry and the result was still the same.
Sincerely
B3--Cube b3 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right... So, being informed of an AfD is apparently in violation of the canvassing guidelines, even though those canvassing guidelines say that it is perfectly acceptable to inform other editors of an ongoing discussion? Got it. Defending the post with relatively sound reasoning, while admitting that it needs some work is only defending it because I like it? Got it. Suggesting that it might be a good idea to cool down and let the article take shape, giving constructive feedback on it is inappropriate for building an encyclopedia? Got it. Guess that removes just about any reason to edit Wikipedia. Now I know why there's a policy like WP:DONTBITE, especially after seeing this thread. Ljsdcdev (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at WP:Canvassing, you're allowed to notify other editors of the discussion, but not selectively notifying only those you think might support your position. Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Please actually read the guidelines, there's a right and wrong way to notify people of discussions. And no one is "biting" anyone, We're just notifying you guys of the ways you're misunderstanding policies and procedures. I guess it's not easy for anyone to hear they're wrong...bit no one has been out of line in regards to telling you this Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a post on Elysian Shadows and a Dreamcast forum. Anyway I wanted to share 2 new sites that have covered the game for the first time in the last 48 hours.
Given that hundreds of websites are covering the same news it is fair to say that the are article is accurate, reliable and verifiable. Given that I made the page with half a dozen reliable websites the whole issue of accuracy is successfully addressed. Sergecross I almost don't want to ask you this right now cause it would just derail this discussion further but why isn't notability established by the number of people interested? Thousands of followers on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter why doesn't that amount to anything?
Best Regards
--Cube b3 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That question is like asking why McDonalds sells burgers or why ESPN covers sports. It is what it is by definition, it's the foundation of what they are. Same with Wikipedia and it's standards of notability. Perhaps you should look into Wikias or something. Their standards are different and typically more lax. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Serge, I fear that talking in metaphors is unproductive. McDonalds has launched McCafe, they have also started offering healthier food options which was fundamentally against their fundamentals. I think the ESPN analogy is more apt because sporting networks are currently in a transition period and they are evaluating the validity of eSports which primarily consists of video games but in a way they are making a fundamental change. So following your analogies a fundamental change is in order. I have been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade with almost no problems, I have been making kick ass articles on indie video games with rarely any problems. Prior to making ES's page I was unaware of an approved list of references, yet all my pages are approved. Nonetheless this will be a fruitless discussion, I would suggest you read my comment at 4:25 July 18th as you didn't reply to it and it delved deeper into my fundamental approach on Wikipedia.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more like, it would be like asking McDonalds not to sell burgers anymore in the analogy, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I requested you to please respond to my comment at 4:25 July 18th.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:COI. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I previously discussed why this topic wasn't ready for primetime on my talk page. Even with the Alabama article, the sourcing for this topic since the last AfD is still paper thin. This isn't a matter of reaching a magic number of sources from the WP:VG/RS list, because the republished press releases and game info listings are not secondary sources that can help build a full-bodied article. There are plenty of other articles that need work until (if and when) this game is announced and gets actual coverage in mainstream, secondary pubs. I should also note since that I am not an admin since I was mentioned as one ("wiki admin czar"), though it should have no bearing on this process anyway. czar ♔ 18:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
This is a press release http://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/218407/Video_Update_for_Elysian_Shadows_NextGen_2D3D_RPG_forDreamcast_OUYA_etc.php the ones used on the page are not in either case it is just a few more days till August, then the game would be on the cover of Indie Game Magazine, surely no one would argue that a game that has graced the cover of a magazine is not noteworthy.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the MCV source. The magazine you mentioned is not reliable. Surely by this point you see what I mean about grasping at straws czar ♔ 05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Single Purpose Accounts

I would just like to point out this single purpose account nonsense as quite a discrimination, I have been on Wikipedia for almsot a decade and have worked on a plethora of things that I am passionate about, I have invited others who are well versed on the subject matter to "chime their opinion" it has been with the intent to enlighten and educate. As a member of the Sega task force I am feeling discriminated especially since not a single sega website or platform specific site is on the list of approved references.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also went through the history of contributions by User:Ljsdcdev and he has been around since 2008 and he is pursuing a PHD in Computer Science so it makes sense that his contributions largely include stuff he is familiar with such as Apple and Sega related articles. Nonetheless I still found evidence of him working on other articles such as Callinectes sapidus, Oriole Park and Memorial Stadium (Baltimore). He may not be the most active Wikipedian but he is evidently not a single purpose account either.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The telltale sign of a SPA is singleminded zeal towards a specific article or area of the encyclopedia, such as towards keeping an article against the findings of recent consensus. SPAs usually have some ulterior motive towards pushing past that point of reasonability, such as some affiliation with the subject. SPA tags are used sparingly and are meant such that others do not have to do the actual work of looking at someone's contributions to find that they're a SPA. czar ♔ 05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's been around since 2008...but has made far less than 50 edits in that time, and despite a 4 year absence from the project, he somehow managed to return just in time for this discussion to give his stance. That's extremely fishy. Not that it matters, he already admitted to being canvassed here by you. That admission is probably more damning than being an SPA, so you may as well drop this angle... Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouya References

I was going through the list of approved references and I just realized that in addition to Sega not a single OUYA platform reference exist either. Not even www.ouyacentral.tv that is an official promotional website for the platform, similar to Nintendo Life, OXM or Playstation Blog. Elysian Shadows were actually interviewed by them today.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, as requested before, stop making subsections in a deletion discussion. Also, what is the relevance of this to relation to whether or not ES should be deleted or not? Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there an objection to adding some {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} tags around some of this and properly formatting what's left? It seems pretty obvious that the huge mess on this page is impeding discussion. No one wants to wade through all this crap just to figure out where the !votes stand before casting their own !vote. Cube b3, this question is directed at you since virtually ALL this mess is your doing. Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly support it, though I held back on doing it myself because I didn't want to be seen as trying to "censor the opposition" or anything like that, since the people doing it seem unaware that they're the one's bogging down the discussion. There's already enough junk out there confusing the real issue here, I didn't want to make it worse... Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was adding subsections to make the page easier to read, if the same can be achieved with Collapse tops/bottoms I would not oppose it. BTW I tagged you all in the talk for Ghost Blade, I am surprised that none of you had anything to contribute. @ Sergecross, Ouya Central TV is relevant because it is another example of a reliable and notable website which isn't even on the list of secondary reference.
Thanks for the prompt response, Cube b3. Re: the tagging, I didn't get a notification. I don't know why it didn't work but perhaps you need to separate our userids with spaces or punctuation other than just "@". Msnicki (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not receive a notification either. I've never heard of Ouya as a source, nor have I noticed it being used on the project. Like any source, you're free to present it and see if its deemed usuable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Fails WP:V and WP:N. This may be notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that. The fact that this was deleted by community consensus and recreated so quickly afterwards suggests salting is appropriate. WP:DELREV can be used if the subject becomes notable. I'll gladly !vote for recreation if that happens. Woodroar (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: While we are waiting on a ruling I just wanted to share that I have submitted a request at WP:VG/RS for Ouya Central TV to be evaluated as a reliable secondary reference. They have covered the game in sufficient detail. Also we are 9 days away from Kickstarter launch, that is the date when main stream websites are scheduled to cover the game according to Elysian Shadows page, the developers have revealed they have already conducted interviews with several high profile publications such as EDGE.--Cube b3 (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Q&A-style interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability because all the real content is the subject's own words. To qualify as WP:SECONDARY, an interview has to contain the interviewer's own secondary thoughts and analysis, e.g., the way 60 Minutes might mix footage of an interview with their own investigatory work and conclusions. Msnicki (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...And the Ouya source discussion isn't going well either... Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 23 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. WP:SOFTDELETE, due to low participation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jovitas Elzbergas[edit]

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

The sources seem trivial at best, and he doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for any kind of biography. That said, some sources are in Lithuanian, so I don't feel entirely to judge them myself. I'll be asking Wikiproject Lithuania to chime in on this one to help out. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:16, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 01:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being a competent professional is not enough for notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:07, 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 speedy delete as WP:G7, as the original editor has blanked the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Scooter and Lima Bean[edit]

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

Not notable. Apart from a scheduled launch event in August 2014, I have not identified any supporting references. Fails WP:NBOOK Flat Out let's discuss it 00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Transport Inc[edit]

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

Almost certainly a product of paid editing, this article comprehensively fails the inclusion criteria at both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Note that it was speedily deleted on 23 June 2011 under the title Stevens Transport as "unambiguous advertising". Despite the mass of "references", none of them indicate significant coverage in independent sources. Virtually all are to auto-generated and/or self-published databases, e.g. Bloomberg, Yahoo, Google, Hoover's, B2B Transport Market, etc. Of the reminder, one of them is blatantly deceptive—this is supposed to verify that the company received the 2012 "General Mills Refrigerated Carrier of the Year" award. The source mentions no such award, nor does it mention the company. The other two are this page from an ambulance-chasing law firm offering their services to anyone who's been in an accident with the company and this two-sentence blurb from D Magazine which notes that the company founder's house is one of the "100 most expensive homes in Dallas" with 6 fireplaces and 2 wet bars and valued at $13,886,900. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And salt Stevens Transport Inc. and Stevens Transport, Inc., too. Agree with nom. One "tell" about a paid editor is the odd wording about the firm operating in about 48 states, converted without understanding of the U.S., perhaps from a statement in one source, a so-called Yahoo Finance page. I am interested to observe that such a "Yahoo Finance" page, actually at biz.yahoo, exists for a company like this, seemingly based on info from the company alone. The section on "Stevens Transport Inc" in the news gives bad, unrelated hits on Benghazi news involving a journalist named Stevens and mentioning "transport" in the news article. This lets me know to downgrade my view of any such Yahoo finance reference. --doncram 16:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A agree with the above - the refs in the article are not independent coverage in reliable sources, and I didn't find any from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Strafford[edit]

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

Not sure if this person is notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER. While the QGM was an achievement its not a George Cross. I don't think his acheivements in bomb disposal make him notable enough Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that he has actually been awarded the QGM and Bar (i.e. two QGMs). However, since eighteen bars have been awarded in forty years we probably cannot consider this to be quite rare enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Two QGMs don't satisfy SOLDIER, and there's no other claim for notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_15&oldid=1142628803"