Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 July	18 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Train (band)#Members. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Shoals[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and reads like a fansite. I've notified the author via talk. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 23:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Train (band)#Members Just started in a major American band; rd is proper until they're more established. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. WP:BAND suggests redirecting when someone has not demonstrated notability independent of the group. Gongshow talk 15:06, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Somers[edit]

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

I don't believe that this person is notable. Yes his suicide was sad but he is not the only war vet to choose this route so if his suicide makes him notable we open up WP to every dead vet. Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person has acquired "significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources" (CNN, The Guardian, Gawker, Daily Mail, etc.), which makes him pass WP:BIO. And yes, his suicide has indeed made him notable. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia's guideline WP:GNG is met handily with this biography, having so many reliable sources commenting on the man and his words that went viral. Regarding the heartless "every dead vet" comment, Wikipedia can and should have articles about every one of them that meets notability guidelines. Certainly Somers does. Binksternet (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed by User:Zhaofeng Li—as well as sources included in the article—demonstrate notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability is referenced in the article. BethNaught (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. He is notable only for his suicide. All of the sources are a rehashing of his suicide. EricSerge (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- However, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Given his suicide (including his suicide note and his attitude towards the war) has significance, and he certainly has the "main role" in the event, I'd like to say he's eligible for an article. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I will admit that he got brief, broad coverage, for a single event. However, the event is no more notable than any other disturbed vet who killed themselves. While his death is tragic, his suicide did not seem to have any long lasting effect or impact that would make it encyclopedic. Are we giving undue weight to recent-ism and because he is a nice white kid from the suburbs? Daniel's story has a place on Wikipedia. He is an illustrative example of the PTSD epidemic that will shadow the generation of GWOT Vets for the rest of their lives. His story belongs in an article dealing with that subject. EricSerge (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It certainly seems notable. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment - is it the event (suicide and the viral suicide note) or the person that is notable? More from WP:ONEEVENT which says "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both" and "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". It was the note that got the attention. Should the title be "Suicide of Daniel Somers"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His notability is achieved solely through his suicide. All the coverage noted was for the event, not the person. Seems that WP:BIO1E applies and the article should not stand. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in life or depth. The current trivial coverage is to be judged by the same standards as n internet meme, where some substantial degree of permanent significance is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move. I am full of pain for what became of him, but it was not the man who was notable. And it wasn't the suicide that was notable either, but the international attention his suicide note received. This is definitely notable, IMO, but it's the event of the media response or maybe the suicide note itself that is notable. RIP Daniel Somers. Dcs002 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of Wikipedia not being news. We do not cover every passing news trend. If this had happened in 1989 no one would have ever bothered making an article, people only created an article because it was an extremely recent event. It is not of lasting significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Cancel hold request) Sorry, but I don't know the appropriate way to request this. Please give me at least a day to establish continued historical significance, as that seems to be the major sticking point in this discussion. A simple Google search turned up a bunch of articles about Daniel Somers and his death, including articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Daily Mail. I will expand the article and source this continued coverage after the event (I hope not too sloppily) per WP:PERSISTENCE. The three articles I mentioned were published in August and November, 2013, and May, 2014. IMO this will clearly demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. If it doesn't, we can continue this discussion. Thank you. Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you all know, I usually edit in small bits. I read a source and post info from that source. This means the article is going to look worse before it looks better. (Right now it looks like the article is relying too heavily on one article in the Washington Post that isn't the greatest source neutrality-wise.) I am planning to add a total of five new sources (the ones I mentioned above plus one from Politico on May 30 and a Congressional transcript from just two weeks ago) before I am done. I will post something here when I have finished these edits. Thanks for your patience. Dcs002 (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for being patient. I have finished adding content and sources. There are formatting issues and pleanty of tidying up issues left, but I think there is enough sourcing now to decide the issue of WP:PERSISTENCE. Ok, I am now hopelessly biased on the issue, but I think it passes that test. :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, I have discovered the proper way to make this type of request. See {{In use}}. Put the tag at the top of the page in question. There are options to show how long you expect to be editing and why you have requested this. You can also tag a single section. The template updates the time of the last edit automatically. Dcs002 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is notable for his suicide note making a major difference; it exposed the VA's gross negligence, fraudulence, and disrespect of not only him, but many other veterans by the VA system. Although there had been previous whistleblowers at the Phoenix VA, none received significant public attention. The Arizona Republic quoted US Representative from Arizona Kyrsten Sinema: "Daniel Somers is the original whistle-blower of the Phoenix VA" (Friday, July 11, 2014, pages A1 and A16). His parents continue to press for systemic change in the VA system. For example, on Thursday, July 10, 2014, they testified before the US House Veterans' Affairs Committee and proposed a number of specific reforms (http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/somers-family-testimony-hearing.pdf). His suicide note also led to whistle-blowers speaking out about other VA hospitals across the nation. The fraudulent "secret lists" were then exposed. These lists had been used to make it seem that VA facilities were meeting their goals for timeliness of appointments; this led to administrative staff receiving bonuses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananagramwinner (talk • contribs)
Comment May I ask that participants in this discussion review the major changes made to the article yesterday and consider whether their !votes still stand as they are? I think the !votes are currently 7 to keep and 5 to delete (counting Gbawden's proposal for deletion as a !vote to delete), which doesn't seem like a consensus at all, but a new review of the highly revised article might result in a clearer consensus. Again, I don't know if there is a proper or formal way to make this request. I'm sorry I'm dominating this discussion, but this subject became important to me through this process, and I am very interested in resolving it clearly and fairly, even if the clear consensus is to delete. It should now be clear that the sourcing for historical WP:PERSISTENCE is roughly as thorough as it is likely to get (assuming Bananagramwinner and I were also reasonably thorough - the "first whistle-blower" statement that Bananagramwinner found ties this in to the larger VA scandal of 2014), so if this doesn't cut it, then so be it. I have never participated in a discussion involving single-event notability or persistence, so I don't know if these newer sources have clearly established the case or made it clearer that, if this is all we get, then it fails one or both tests. Thank you again for your tremendous patience! Dcs002 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but retitle to Suicide of Daniel Somers. 90% of what makes the subject notable is their whistleblowing attempts/actions agains the VA. Giving some preamble that explains the lead up to the suicide/note, but not as a Biography of Daniel Somers. Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. This suicide was obviously notable due to the impact it had on the VA. For that reason I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Montez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and GNG requirements. (Not to mention devoid of references.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be quite clear that his political career came to nothing. The fact that the article is 6 years out of date, and unreferenced, is a cautionary tale against lowering the notability bar too far. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No strong claim of notability that would get him past WP:POLITICIAN (highest office ever attained is a municipal committee? er, no) — and the article relies exclusively on a user-generated database for referencing, without so much as a shred of reliable source coverage to explain why he would belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, the article was created by User:ProfLiberté, implying a potential conflict of interest as the article identifies its subject as a libertarian and the creator has never made any other contributions to Wikipedia at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any evidence this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holder of a postion so minor, that it would not make him notable in any city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at present he fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN and, separately, there are not the sources required to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:16, 24 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 decker ^talk 02:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darklady[edit]

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

Fails notability for WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate; fails notability for WP:AUTHOR for non-notable writing; remove all of the non-sourced BLP info and she fails WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article relies exclusively on primary and unreliable sources for referencing. Being an unelected candidate for office does not get her past WP:POLITICIAN — and the article as written does not actually demonstrate or source any substantive reason why she would pass WP:WRITER either. Delete; no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually come up with real sourcing about her career as a writer. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails the notability guidelines for politicians by a very large margin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post[edit]

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

Deprodded for no reason by Fwpwiki (talk · contribs), who seems to have WP:OWN issues as they have most of the edits to the article. Prod reason was "Not notable. Only sources are Snopes debunking some of its articles. No reliable sourcing found, only blogs." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those trying to decipher what the nominator means, "deprodded" apparently means removed a "proposal for deletion" (i.e. "prod") notice on an article. Agyle (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I could not find significant coverage of the subject itself in independent reliable sources. However, its articles have attracted reasonably significant coverage in reliable sources, which I think meets Wikipedia:Notability (web)'s criterion that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." While some of the coverage I considered is in opinion pieces, which are not reliable sources for factual purposes, their publication in high-profile reliable sources still seems indicative of the subject's notability. Some coverage considered:

Harbison, C. (2014-05-13). "Football Player AJ McCarron Flaunts Sexual Orientation On Live Television: Free Wood Post Satire Article Has Internet In An Uproar". International Digital Times.
Fader, Carole (2012-09-01). "Fact Check: Too important to go to Vietnam? Romney never said it". The Florida Times-Union.
Garvin, Glenn (2013-10-27). "The war on Halloween". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (Note: this is an op-ed column)
Pryal, Katie Rose Guest (2012). "The Rhetoric of Sissy-Slogans: How Denigrating the Feminine Perpetuates the Terror Wars". The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice. 15 (503).
O'Neil, Luke (2013-05-10). "No More Fake News". New Republic.
"Is Michele Bachmann Trying To Ban Halloween? Free Wood Post Article Confuses Social Media, Spawning Epic Internet Hoax". International Design Times. 2013-10-18. (Note: source seems to have ceased publishing in January 2014)
Erb, Kelly Phillips (2012-07-30). "Why I Don't Believe That Anonymous Hacked The IRS For Romney's Returns". Forbes. (Note: this is an opinion piece, disavowed by Forbes in a disclaimer)
"Satire Website Misrepresents Ted Cruz's Christian Faith". Christian Post. 2013-09-30.
Bigelow, William (2012-10-11). "Twitter: Liberals Buy Into Fiction That Romney Wants to Ban Tampons". Breitbart.

There are also many cases where FW Post's works of fiction are carried as factual news, with the source unattributed, for example in this Ghana Nation story, although it's not clear that influencing world news media confers "notability" in the Wikipedia sense.

––Agyle (talk) 03:36, 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, czar ♔ 05:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:15, 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 redirect to Primary schools in Singapore. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compassvale Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the hometown per SCHOOLOUTCOME. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore per established consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore per established consensus for non-notable primary schools as documented at OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC). Where 'redirect' is an obvious outcome. there is no need for AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, probably to Primary schools in Singapore, per nom and comments of others. The article does not have any substantial sources, it almost only asserts existence. --do ncr am 22:10, 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 redirect to Thatcher Unified School District. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Daley Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school, for children in grades 1-3. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~the hometown~~ Thatcher Unified School District per SCHOOLOUTCOME. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This school has a school district it can be merged into at Thatcher Unified School District. No opinion yet on the school's notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow good find :), it'll do for me lol –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as usual I don't see the point of bringing these here: ifthe intention tis to induce us to delete as many as possible,the best that can be hoped for is that it will be done at random, and Ido not see how that will satisfy anybody; if it's to encourage us to stop making even redirects, my own view is that it would more logically lead us to accepting full articles as long as they are verified, because they afe certainly significant enough to be worth some mention. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district. I'm not finding significant RS coverage for this school. The school's Blue Ribbon status is worth a mention in the district article. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thatcher Unified School District per OUTCOMES.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMM[edit]

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

Small company (24 employees) whose only claim to fame is a few CES awards (though the links to those awards are broken). Nearly all of the references are from the ZOMM's site or press releases. Attempts to speedy and prod were disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Company was named a finalist in the Mobile CE: Fashion & Lifestyle Products and Mobile CE: Accessories categories in the CTIA Emerging Technology (E-Tech) Awards per http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/idUS114819+09-Jan-2012+BW20120109, http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/257423, http://launchdfw.com/news/key-ring-takes-home-two-awards-at-ctia-wireless-2011/, http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2011/03/07/DC60797 & http://news.yahoo.com/bc-ctia-e-tech-awards-03-07-20110307-152705-178.html. Products have reviews at http://mobileoffice.about.com/od/mobilecomputingbasics/ss/vote-for-your-favorite-mobile-products-2011_8.htm, http://www.cnet.com/products/zomm-wireless-leash/, http://www.laptopmag.com/accessories/zomm-wireless-leash-plus.aspx & http://www.cbsnews.com/news/review-zomm-wireless-leash-for-mobile-phones. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three or four reviews after making a splash at CES in 2011. All of the other links are press releases. No significant coverage of the company by reliable sources. Already looking like a technology footnote of the early 2010s. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - They are the "developer of the world’s first Wireless Leash™ for mobile phones". Additionally, the reviews have depth, independence, and meet WP:GNG. Here is another long review that I found http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/review_gasget_zomm_/. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 2 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 ♔ 05:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is almsot nothing where merely being a finalist amounts to notability, and nothing else is claimed. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just routine coverage and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter van Oortmerssen[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. All but one of the sources offered are WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful; the one that isn't primary is an WP:SPS blog post and equally unhelpful. As an WP:ACADEMIC, he might qualify based on his scholarly work but a search of Google scholar turned up only a few minor papers with only a few citations. (Generally speaking, a significant paper is one with >1000 citations; this subject's top paper only received 6 citations, which is basically nothing.) Googling failed to turn up anything useful on the web or in books. His main claim to fame appears to be the creation of some toy programming languages and a game engine, all of apparently similarly questionable notability. It's possible I missed something but I don't think so.

Also, please see related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FALSE. Msnicki (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm seeing claims that he is a "legend" in the Amiga community, but that doesn't seem to have translated into coverage in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:48, 17 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) 01:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear notability, and written as a personal autobio. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 37 hits in Scholar. Fully, either his articles, cited by his peers, or articles citing him or his work. No fluff, no trivial mentions. Compare that with OpenTTD, an open-source programming language. 50 hits on Scholar, many of them trivial mentions of the use of OpenTTD to test other things. Both are related to the bastard child that none of the academics who contribute to WP want to even admit exists-computer games. But one of them is done for FUN. O, please. Must we? Games for fun? And the other is Wikipedia's favorite son, open source. We are open source, after all. You do the math. It was obvious to me before I hit a single link. Anarchangel (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon reflection, I recall that archness and sarcasm are less productive than other tones. Do not have the energy to fix it, though, today. Anarchangel (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How do you get 37 hits? When I click the Google scholar link above, it reports "About 33 results (0.12 sec; Showing 33 matches)". The top 3 results are "Cube" with 3 citations, "The Cube Engine" with 2 citations and "Concurrent tree space transformation in the aardappel programming language" with 6 citations (consistent with what I said in my nomination). Do you see something different when you click? Are you arguing that 6 citations should be enough under WP:SCHOLAR? And what is your point about 50 hits for OpenTTD? Are you arguing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I'm completely at loss to understand your !vote. Can you help me, please? Msnicki (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are the weakest evidence, only a little better than assertions. This is partly why. It is possible to get different results for a search. I may also have been in error with the 37, but I do not think so. At any rate, I now see 33 results and the same top three as you. The subject has very much caught the imagination of his niche community with his frequent reworking of code in innovative and imaginative formats, and to a lesser extent, with the unusual names for his code. He has caught an awful lot of fan press with the former and latter together. The Scholar results are more the result of his code than its funky names, I should imagine, and there are nearly as many scholarly works dealing with him and his work as there are for an entire open source coding system, including all the instances where people are making tests of other code or hardware etc, and using OpenTTD as a standard. These mentions of TTD would be trivial, as the focus of the test is a result unrelated to OpenTTD. I surely hope that explanation is sufficient, as I would not be capable of explaining it more clearly. Anarchangel (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't fully understand what Anarchangel is trying to communicate, though I understand van Oortmerssen wrote something game-related ten years ago, and Archangel thinks Wikipedia contributors are academics with a bias against games. While one could argue with that, it's beside the point. Checking Google Scholar, I found no papers by van Oortmerssen in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. There are a few references to a webpages titled "Cube", "Cube 2", or "Cube Engine" at his website "cubeengine.com" (e.g., see detect_cheat.pdf in some conference proceedings and less formal writings. Most of the results returned by Google Scholar do not mention van Oortmerssen at all; Google tries to guess what results might interest a person, it doesn't search for actual occurrences of a search term. Other results returned included van Oortmerssen's PhD thesis, and credits in a few books that printed a funny photo of Richard Stallman, taken by van Oortmerssen. ––Agyle (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, did not find evidence of notability in multiple independent reliable sources, nor does his work meet academic biography guidelines (WP:PROF). This 2001 OSNews interview, cited in the article, counts for something; it begins "Wouter van Oortmerssen is a living legend in the Amiga community". Perhaps there is other coverage we don't have access to in old Amiga magazines or something, but unless properly documented, I would not presume notability. If someone really wants to work on this biography, they should try contacting him to see if he can suggest publications that covered his work; some people keep clippings of that sort of thing. ––Agyle (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The OSNews interview is almost but not quite enough to establish notability. I checked GBooks, which didn't turn up anything either (they have some old computing magazines, I was hoping to hit some Amiga-centric ones). There just doesn't seem to be enough raw material here to write an actual biography, rather than a list of trivia. If someone can expand the article with material from old Amiga mags, I might change my mind. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:36, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PDFLite[edit]

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

IP editor contested the PROD. As I said in the PROD, this article has zero reliable third-party sources showing notability, nor could I find any after a search online. The article fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be retained. PDFLite is included in a list of PDF Converters here: List of PDF software Jrshaw (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That something is listed in an index-of-pages is not a reason to keep the page. The topic itself needs to have independent sources supporting notability of it. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my search gave no RS apart from this short blog post of Sumatra PDF's author, who claims that this software is not notable at any rate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as "blatant advertising or promotion" and consider investigating the original poster for using WP to promote malware. This article is written like an ad, which is a very bright red flag for something that's open source. All I could find about it was problems people had with it installing unwanted programs and adware without consent. Herdprotect.com says, "The application pdflite.exe by Best Download Manager has been detected as adware by 11 anti-malware scanners." Dcs002 (talk) 06:30, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe "the Godfather" Anthony[edit]

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

Unsourced, no real indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 18:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Therraisnathan[edit]

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

self promotion, not notable R.srinivaas (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC) self promotion, not notable --R.srinivaas (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. I may have missed something looking through the 50 references, but as far as I can tell, all of them are self-published, trivial mentions, youtube links, download links, directory listings, and other non-references that provide absolutely zero significant coverage of the subject. The article appears to exist purely for publicity purposes in violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - user User:Praisewinner already started offending/annoying me in my talk page for nominating Vincent Therraisnathan and S.V.S. Rathinam for deletion, please check articles linked to these articles , the creators of this page seem to create it time and again once it is deleted , please salt them.R.srinivaas (talk) 12:42, 16 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 decker ^talk 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He apparently is credited as a musician in a couple of films but that's not enough for WP:MUSICIAN, and we also have no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Of the many footnotes, the only one that looks on the surface like it could be a good source, the Times of India one, turns out to be a search page with no results for the subject. In any case if there is some notability here the horrible writing will prevent it from being discovered, so WP:TNT applies as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Navarro Ericson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article fails WP:BIO because the only reliable source, Malibu Surfside News, is only local in scope. Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. We absolutely cannot have BLPs with little to no reliable, independent sourcing. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a competent professional, which does not equal notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for artistis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 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 speedy keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked editor (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Meredith Hart[edit]

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

Might not be notable.. BlakeSnake (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's notable to those who enjoy Texas historyTheGr8Gonzo (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice. The article, in its current state, doesn't make clear how Hart meets WP:BIO and is notable. Bad as that may be, an AfD with a weak rationale a mere seven minutes after the article was created is worse. I'd like to see the article get some attention and improvement: more sources, a better introduction, etc. If, after a few weeks or months, we don't have much in the way of sources and it isn't clear that he's notable, then let's go through the AfD process. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has an entry in the Handbook of Texas and gets a few paragraphs in the book Historic Hunt County; the latter states he is believed to be the first white settler in Hunt County and was "named one of the five commissioners to organize the county". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Opened by banned user's sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of that on the nominator's user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:07, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan (Rugby League)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG, having never played at fully-professional level. Prod contested on the grounds that he meets the criteria because he played in a Challenge Cup game, but this was made in the early rounds of the cup when it is a purely amateur competition. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Might be a case that shows RLN needs to be changed to remove the Challenge Cup (or at least its early rounds). Unless I missed it, the source in the article doesn't even show that Paul Ryan played in that match as there is no team list. Ireland A appearances are not notable. Mattlore (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cant find anything about a notable career in the sport. Murry1975 (talk) 11:21, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Erelli[edit]

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

Person Not Notable Bansal (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep-- Notability is adequate per the secondary sources like this one [1] listed in the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keithbob. The Telegraph, Washington Post and Huffington Post articles meet WP:MUSICBIO Dolescum (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage he has received is not substantial enough to warrant a page Bansal (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Mark Erelli "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician"? I would say so, based on some of the many references already included in the article, including those mentioned above. That means he meets criterion #1 of WP:NMUSIC and also the WP:GNG, so I don't see how the argument that "the coverage he has received is not substantial enough to warrant a page" holds up. Keep. — sparklism ^hey! 10:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- I was asked to help with improving the article several months ago and took great care to provide adequate secondary sources. I agree with comments above that the article is adequately sourced and meets criterion #1 WP:NMUSIC and also WP:GNG. Kmzundel (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in good sources to show that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to news.google.com and search for Mark Erelli, one article comes up. I don't know anyone who has heard of him. Bansal (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google news results only go back a few weeks, so it's not surprising that there are few results. WP:NMUSIC doesn't include a clause that people you know need to have heard of the subject. --Michig (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick keyword search of Ebsco's Newspaper Source database retrieved 55 citations. Kmzundel (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably local newspapers mentioning his performances, and possibly other people who share his name. Even the one article I found in Google News was a passing mention that he had performed somewhere. A notable figure would have far more coverage, even if it only supposedly goes back a few weeks. You must be hardcore fans, he is not notable by an objective standard. Bansal (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is already enough notability in the article for Wiki purposes. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a quote from a review of Erelli's album Delivered published in The Huffington Post that seems to nicely support Keep. This is a source not previously cited in the article. Kmzundel (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was already sourced enough to establish notability at the time of nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And what a hilarious AfD! It starts with the nomination "Person Not Notable": which lect of English is this? And it gets better: "I don't know anyone who has heard of him." Me, I've no idea if I know anyone who has heard of him. (I lack the energy to email everybody to ask.) I'd never heard of him, because I don't routinely read the Torygraph, WashPo or HuffPo. But now that I do read of him there, I can see that there's no problem of notability. (Some of this may be apposite.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first experience (if I remember correctly) with WP:AFD. I just read the policy on closing a discussion. Can I assume that some uninvolved editor or Admin will [automatically] close the discussion tomorrow, if there seems to be a consensus? Does that person also remove the tag that was placed on the article? Thank you. Kmzundel (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this WP:SNOW AfD will be closed in the next few days and the uninvolved, closing party will remove the AfD tag from the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Keithbob! Also, I wasn't familiar with WP:SNOW so I appreciate the heads-up on that. Kmzundel (talk) 16:41, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toh Guan[edit]

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

Unremarkable geography location. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 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, Davewild (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ome flats and three car parks do not a notable location make. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, this is a sub-unit of an urban planning zone in Singapore. The planning areas themselves may be notable, but I'm not seeing the notability for the sub-units of geogrpahy used for urban planning. There is no indication of historical significance of this area (e.g., former village or something like that). For all we know, it may just be some arbitrary lines drawn onto a map by an intern in the planning department. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE[edit]

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

Programming language developed in 1992, didn't find any independent reliable sources to verify information or indicate notability of subject. Has had "notability" tag since 2012, no references cited. Agyle (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, well, there are none. No objection to merging some this material at Esoteric programming language#FALSE but I don't believe there are sources to justify a separate article or even a wholesale merge. See also related AfD regarding the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter van Oortmerssen‎. Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not seeing anything in the peer-reviewed literature, google books, or any independent, reliable sources via google. I don't think there's enough here to warrant a merge, but I wouldn't object. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. And naming it by a common word doesn't help in trying to find any... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , not notable in a general encyclopediac way, only influences cited in article are on equally obscure ...novelty... programming lnaguages. Computer science in-jokes are not good content for a general purpose encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:49, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Smith Goodwin[edit]

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

While she does have coverage, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. She is known for one thing and one thing only, being the Wendy's commercial girl. Not notable. Not enough for her own article anyway. I suggest redirecting to Wendy's. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACTOR doesn't come into play if she passes GNG, which I think is the case with her coverage in the The Birmingham News. SNGs only exist to assume notability when there aren't sufficient sources for GNG. Regardless, some of her coverage is for her other acting, so WP:BLP1E doesn't count. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the only coverage on her is for her commercials. It's not like it's delving into her career, it's just talking about who that girl is from the Wendy's commercial. Hardly notable coverage if it's only covering her on one subject. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. It's not true that all of the coverage is on one subject as the first article cited is about her theatrical work, not her commercial acting. Also, there are many more sources available from earlier in her career to expand this article, which is more than sufficient for GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet the verifiability and notability thresholds. There are also more sources available from earlier in her career to expand this article, which is more than sufficient for GNG. She could even be added to the Notable People from Alabama page. --Phillipc69 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does meet the verifiability threshold, but it meets the notability threshold for having a large fan base or cult following. She's appeared in more than 40 Wendy's commercials that have been aired over 120,000 times; there are numerous fan sites, fan club sites, and downright creepy stalker-ish sites. There are even I hate the Wendy's Girl pages. There are more articles written in the past week that could be used as references in the article as well. I think it would be a mistake to keep this as an AfD. Hairband304 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 07:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)— Hairband304 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per above comments, especially that she's become a pubic figure. I'd be willing to delete a BLP of a child actor, if the subject or her agent directly contacted us, with the wish that the article be deleted, to protect her. However, she's now 28 years old, and has a family. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments above. She IS notable IMO. Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Holy Clara Peller, she meets GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:25, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Rajendra Ratnoo[edit]

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

It's already survived a PROD so I have no choice other than take it to AfD. I can't find any evidence of this person being notable other than a few passing mentions. Secondly, the page contains absolutely nothing but an infobox and one reference. What the fuck? Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor placed the reference in such a manner that he or she probably thought it was going to associate with the infobox. I've at least added one sentence to give it actual readable prose, but I don't see anything to suggest notability. Raymie (t • c) 22:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An article about a civil servant with no assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no sign of notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Managing director in the administrative service" is not a claim of notability that passes any specific Wikipedia notability guideline, and the quality of sourcing here is not strong enough to even put him over WP:GNG in the first place. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight Magazine[edit]

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

I hate to do this, but, I'm fearing that this magazine might not pass WP:GNG let alone Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Now, maybe it does pass #5 on that notability criteria - however, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources that talk about the magazine outside of mere mentions regarding the a soap opera star coming out of the closet in the magazine.

Perhaps others disagree, and perhaps this will be kept, and that would be great, if it can be improved, but, my own exploration in improving it failed. :( SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I admit it is tough to find secondary sources because of the generic/vague name of the magazine, simply, "The Fight", but sources do indeed turn up in searches for "the fight magazine" and/or "the fight" with LGBT in search parameters. Tough going research, however, this is the case indeed. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 2 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 decker ^talk 00:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of global climate system components[edit]

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

Seems to be a case of WP:OR; not everyone agrees on what components make up the global climate system; see Nasa's opinion at the bottom of the page. Also, the page says it's a quick lookup tool. In short, doesn't follow WP:NOTGUIDE --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is not something for which this presentation is really appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:36, 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 merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Thach Hoa Mi-171 crash[edit]

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

Military crashes are not notable in their own right Petebutt (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it meets the guidelines for notability. Plenty of coverage in sources.

Widespread media coverage of the crash by major news outlets

ABC News TIME Wall Street Journal Christian Science Monitor MSN News ITAR TASS International Business Times [2] The Straits Times

According to Wall Street Journal, Vietnam has grounded its entire MI-171 helicopter fleet because of the crash

Rajmaan (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its entry at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present), seems to be common practice per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. I don't see the article becoming much larger than it sits now, which is about the length of an entry included in my suggested redirect target.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Definitely notable, but not enough info to have it's own page. AndroidChuck31 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Striking sock !vote Ish dar ian 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) and redirect, as per kelapstick. The information there should be updated, as well as at Mil Mi-171. FWIW, A similar military crash around Hanoi in 2008 had the same treatment. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) and 2014 in aviation per above. Also, no notable victims. Brandmeister^talk 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the above suggested article, per reasoning given by user Dragfyre and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:AIRCRASH Nathan121212 (talk) 14:46, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrinterOn[edit]

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

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reference 1 gives independent coverage. I have found no Google news hits and a regular search turns up little but the company's websites and how-tos from institutions which use the product. Hence article fails the GNG. BethNaught (talk) 17:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VConnect[edit]

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

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Google search does not turn out to give any significant result. Ireneshih (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Are you familiar with wikipedia's GNG criteria at all? This article obviously doesn't fail notability (web) criteria. All the references cited are from credible and popular dailies. plus The social media accounts of the subject all have what can be considered as a "cult following". Google search didn't give any significant result? are you sure you used the same google search I just used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Tubers (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamanlal Kamani[edit]

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

renominating - after non admin shutdown without prejudice to repeat opening - there is only one outside web story from 2006 - the content is mostly . well all about connections to companies - he is pretty clearly imho not personally worthy of a story here, a businessman, then it talks about the "The Kamani Family" - there is already a story written about him on the the Corruption in kenya story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Kenya#2000.E2.80.932009 and as that is the only story worthy of posting about him then this life story is redundant Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to show that Kamani passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to not meet WP:BIO. No valid references are provided.--Rpclod (talk) 19:09, 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. Deor (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz Cem[edit]

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

Non-notable actor or martial artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable actor.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google seems to show lots of press for his name in Turkish language . Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear those are for the same person.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:14, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still a completely non-notable actor, unless readers here can read Turkish. Fine for Turkish Wikipedia, not so fine for us here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That the subject is covered only in non-English sources is not a valid argument for deletion; see WP:NONENG. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to AfD this due to WP:BIO concerns. Not seeing any mainstream sources... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S.V.S. Rathinam[edit]

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

self promotion/advt R.srinivaas (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC) self promotion, not a notable person--R.srinivaas (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just out of interest, how can someone who died in 1966 be self-promoting on Wikipedia in 2014? And how can a biography of a dead person be advertising? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted by family members R.srinivaas (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is going to take forever to remove / delete such pages, long live wikipediaR.srinivaas (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've only just nominated it for deletion this is a pretty daft comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- indeed it is out of frustration :) R.srinivaas (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the claims show sufficient notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've nominated his mentor, Pere Di Elbreil. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- 10,000 converts (even if in conjunction with another person); presidential gold medal. If correct, this sound like notability to me. The complaint does not seem to be that the content is inaccurate. I suspect the nom has an axe to grind, to remove notable Indian Christians nof an earlier generation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- it is just a claim , where is the citation ? all the reference provided are bogus, i strongly oppose, if it would help i reached this article from recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Rathnam (3rd nomination) , which claimed this person as his father and recently nominated Vincent Therraisnathan as his sibling, may be a group people promoting their family --R.srinivaas (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is certainly a claim to notability for this person. That Thomas Rathnam is not notable is irrelevant in the context of this article, and we have to assume good faith when it comes to other editors and their motivations. Most of the references do not appear to be reliable sources (which is an entirely different thing from being "bogus") but there may very well be other usable references; I do not read Tamil so can't find sources in that language. Please note that references do not have to be online, but they (obvously) have to exist in some form. In the interest of counteracting systemic bias it is important to include notable people outside the Western world - provided they are notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this "gold medal from the president of India" a Presidential Gold Medal of India or something that we have an article on the award? Is there any evidence he received it? The 10,000 converts seems to be this man, the priest mentioned here, and maybe some others. Is there a reliable source covering conversions of the untouchables in India. I know in the mid-20th-century many of those left Hinduism for other religions in very large groups, enough that India has since tried to pass laws to discourage such, so in the context of the time and place 10,000 converts is not neccesarily that big a deal. I'm sure there were Catholic missionaries in 15th-century Mexico who baptized many more Native people than that who we have no articles on. There are published books on the history of Christianity in both Asia and India specifically, I started reading one on the later when a student at Wayne State University, but never finished it. These might be good places to look to see if there are any mentions of Rathinam and his work in converting people. Tamil sources might also be helpful if they are findable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is cryptic indeed, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources available online, nor any indication that offline or non-English sources exist. At the risk of stating the obvious, we can't really keep articles at AfD solely on the basis that they contain remarkable claims (e.g. having converted a large number of people or having received a certain award) – if those claims aren't verifiable, and in this case they don't seem to be, then they can't be used to establish notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources yet to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No sources. There also seems to be some hoaxing going on on the internet concerning this family; see the rather crude "Mr. potato head" style photofits on this page for instance and the repeated recreation of Thomas Rathnam, a supposed descendent. I don't doubt this is a real person but that isn't helping to find sources and means we need to be particularly vigilant about verification in this case. I have no idea what the Tamil script is saying in the article that is supposedly the Tamil version of his name (Google translate comes up with nothing intelligble), but the shear length of it makes it pretty certain that it does not say "S.V.S. Rathinam". From the cover of his book I summise that "S.V.S. Rathinam" is "எஸ். வி. எஸ். இரத்தினம்" in Tamil. Hence I offer

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

However, not seeing anything useful there, so no easily accessible sources in Tamil either. Further, I think the major claim to importance of converting 10,000 christians is dubious. The article later says that he assisted Di Elbreil to convert 10,000. I am presuming that is the same 10,000. SpinningSpark 18:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpinningSpark ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Display pavilions during the 2010 Winter Olympics[edit]

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

Non notable IMO - this is effectively a list of advertisers/displays at the Olympics - what is notable about this? Gbawden (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's press releases from the organisations that had pavillions (which are primary sources), and some mentions. But it lacks significant coverage. I did find this Winnipeg Free Press artcile about the Manitoba pavillion being re-used. Hoever, that is the only substantial piece of coverage, and it really doesn't address the pavilions as a group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I corraled these together because at the time Canada's Northern House article had just been created and I hoped a list would be better than a seperate article for each pavillion. I still think that. Back at the time there was TONS of press about these pavillions (see here for example , certainly enough for a list, if it can still be found. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:10, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor aspect of a major event without lasting impact. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; once the Olympics were over, so was the press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incite (company)[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is award by "Market Research Society," a non-notable organization. All other references are primary or do not meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 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 ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite enough coverage for a 14 year old firm, the awards while appropriate for the industry are a bit weedy. With some in depth coverage in reliable sources, I'd change my vote, but I don't see that being forthcoming given my attempts to find something. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superbalist.com[edit]

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

Non-notable. Only references given are press releases. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 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 ♔ 15:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:23, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; has also been tagged for notability since March 2010. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AirDye[edit]

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

Reads like something out of a brochure, with a sensationalist tone. The majority of sources are either press releases or blogs. A search revealed mostly press releases and blogs as well. Nothing reliable enough to show the subject's notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. This is a terrible-quality article on a topic for which there seems to be no high-quality source. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is useful. Can be improved by deleting promotional content and adding reliable sources. Only multiple issue tag is required - Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly an ad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. MiracleMat (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:22, 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. WP:CSD#A7 would also apply. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locust Fork (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why is this here? Already deleted once per A7 on 17 July 2014 it should have simply been tagged for CSD again and deleted again. A clear case of a non notable band failing WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Elvester Records should also be deleted per CSD:A7 and "Bring Forth..." should be deleted per CSD:A9 - it's a little walled garden of articles solely about one non-notable band. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion. Clear case of COI/promotion, See User talk:Kudpung#Locust Fork. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Saqib Imad[edit]

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

None notable person. Claim to be CEO fo AYDA Pakistan that is backed up by link to AYDA.co.uk that does not mention him or AYDA Pakistan. Claims to be member or director of various organisations that are themselves not notable. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. per Xxanthippe. Fai zan 19:40, 24 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. Eliminating the obvious SPA !votes (none of which make valid policy-based arguments to keep), the consensus is that the subject fails to meet the inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Ali Najmi[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable. 0 hits on G-News, no useful hits on G-books, the two visible refs in the article are about a book, not the person. The Khizria Order doesn't seem to be notable either. But perhaps there are references in other languages that show his notability? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worked to clean this up, but in the end I just don't see that there's anything here of note. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I appreciate User:WikiDan61's efforts to clean this article up. Shahzad Ali Najmi is mentioned in the Daily Jang; in addition, he is also discussed in the Daily Express, which are both reliable sources. As such, they seem to establish his notability, thus passing WP:N. However, when I performed a search for the subject's Urdu name, شہزاد علی نجمی, I was unable to find much more. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable reference contained in the article, but it is in Urdu language. --George David Wilson (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)--George David Wilson (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — George David Wilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the Nifaaz-e-Urdu, the Daily Jang, the Daily Express All the three are considered very reliable sources in Pakistan. --Nida Farooqi (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Nida Farooqi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Regarding Anupam's comments: a brief publication announcement and a single book review (included within a column of several book reviews) does not appear to reach the required level of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In News of The Daily Jang mentioned that the writer of "Najmi Healing Energy" Book is Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi. It's proves he is a writer. In comments to the Daily Express Mentioned that Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi a writer of "Najmi Healing Energy" Book that is the first Islamic Healing Energy Book in the World & also Mentioned Dr. Syed Shahzad Ali Najmi is a murid of Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi that proves his contact to the Sufism etc.--Dr. Alan Godlas (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Dr. Alan Godlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Again, I ask for evidence of significant coverage. So far, none has been produced. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant enough coverage to meet our notability bar. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that references which are given in article are reliable and significant. --Mhetab Aalam Mhetab (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Mhetab Aalam Mhetab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I protest to all administrators of wikipedia that to include this article in wikipedia, references which are given in article are reliable and significant. --Syed Kamran Ali Romi (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC) — Syed Kamran Ali Romi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I think that evidence of reliable & significant references have been confirmed, so the article should be included in Wikipedia.--Peaceful Peaceful (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) — Peaceful Peaceful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore it does not merit a Wikipedia article. It fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for people. I see, tons of SPAs here, not sure if there have been a SPI regarding this. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:35, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech University Libraries[edit]

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

Was PRODed, then dePRODED by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: A 'how to', original research, or an essay. Neither of which is admissible on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't tell which of those it is, but it definitely falls somewhere under WP:NOT.—LucasThoms 15:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable information and no sources. Frmorrison (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:NOTWEBHOST: a statement on the talkpage says: "We are experimenting with article geotagging for use in an Augmented Reality environment. The content was written by Texas Tech University Libraries Communications and Marketing division. The current content is to serve as a placeholder for revised content while we attempt to implement the geotagging technologies." Yngvadottir (talk) 02:12, 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 procedural close; article was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak as a copyright infringment. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Tanner[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Was PRODed and dePRODed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as described, and only sources are not independent. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete a long way below the notability standard. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sandy Tanner is the Secretary General of the International Young Democrat Union, an organisation with over 80 member organisations in more than 100 countries (including the UK Conservative Party's Youth Wing, CDU's Junge Union in Germany, and the Young Republicans in the United States). The article is a supporting article to the IYDU page - which is linked - and provides information on a senior elected official for several thousand individually affiliated members.Mfs104 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)mfs104[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes[edit]

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

WP:ALS WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode television viewership and notes about contestants appearing on each episode. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") Episode ratings, contestant notes and winnings as well as episode themes are all unsourced.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Deletion reasons addressed in other similar AFDs, such as:

AldezD (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete per ample precedent. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains unsourced fan cruft that is overly detailed for a game show such as Millionaire. With all the other recent AFDs for lists of game show episodes (such Deal or No Deal, The Chase, and Hollywood Game Night), I'm surprised this has lasted as long as it has. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for encyclopedia. Frmorrison (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Is simply listcruft that belongs elsewhere .–Davey2010 • (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor O. Ledenyov[edit]

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

Autobiography. Sources do not appear to add up to notability per WP:ACADEMIC Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 6 fails WP:Prof. A machine translation? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. See also Dimitri O. Ledenyov for more of the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobiography, very badly written, no real sources, claims of notability are vague and unsubstantiated, no evidence of academic impact in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also no WP:RS. Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 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. There is clear consensus to delete this article. The nominator also cited a discussion about a large number of similar articles. First, thank you for not nominating all of them at once; those kinds of mass AfDs are often difficult to manage. I gather the intent was to use this a a trial balloon for the whole series. I don't think this AfD should be taken to establish any kind of precedent for the others. I would encourage you to continue to evaluate them one at a time. Just my personal opinion on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of stackable switches[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion after lengthily discussion here: User talk:Dsimic § Re: List of M.2 SSDs as a section in the M.2 article. Many other articles were mentioned in the discussion, but let's start with this one and see what the consensus is. The main arguments raised in the said discussion are:

Articles with lists of products, like this one, tend to be biased toward certain manufacturers, as they do not contain all products. This list, for example, does not contain even half of known stackable switches, which turns it into an advertisement. Listing some manufacturers and products, but not others is not neutral, and lists like this can never be neutral, so it should be deleted.
List is outdated, and it is almost impossible to make it up-to date, which makes it per se incorrect. Article that is per se incorrect should be deleted.

Please, do not make arguments in the discussion like "There are other similar articles". The goal is to delete all such articles, and this one is just a start. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above provided nomination proposal, as well as per the above linked discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete we are not Consumer Reports or any of its IT equivalents, and that's the only reasonable location for such a chart. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I don't see a policy-based argument for deletion here. We are allowed (and encouraged) to delete non-notable articles, attack pages, hoaxes, etc., but there is no policy I'm aware of that encourages the deletion of articles that are out-of-date or incomplete. We fix those, not delete them. See WP:DELETE. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, the arguments raised above are totally policy-based. They are based on the WP:DELETE policy. Reason for deletion No. 14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Certain editors think that this article is not suitable for encyclopedia because it is promotional (WP:PROMOTION, another policy), and because it is impossible to maintain its accuracy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this list of switches is a clear example of WP:PROMOTION, as it contains less than a half of all available stackable Ethernet switches. Something like that tends to turn into advertising; it we had an out-of-date Comparison of D-Link stackable switches article, that would've been a different story, as it wouldn't compare products from different manufacturers. Also, what's the value of having such an article? To me, it has very little of the actual encyclopedic value. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main problem is that this is not an encyclopedia article, in particular I think WP:DISCRIMINATE applies, in particular the paragraph of "Excessive listings of statistics". It looks like a table that one would find in a technological consumer magazine, but without the benefit of an article to put the table in context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AskInternets[edit]

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

Non-notable smartphone app. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Google doesn't turn up a single secondary source, reliable or unreliable - only app/site listing pages and ads. Prod removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm only seeing mentions in forums, social media sites, and the like. No coverage found in independent reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 05:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—For an app this new I wouldn't expect coverage in WP:RS, and indeed there isn't any. If it takes off, we can recreate the article once others have taken notice. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:05, 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. The article now meets WP:BAND with the supplied references. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Versus You[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND; most references are to twitter, facebook etc. The obvious COI doesn't help, either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Searching turns up coverage in multiple newspaper articles; for example, this in Le Quotidien, this in the Luxemburger Wort, this in L'essentiel. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing Run[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever of notability; like Onslaught (gametype) and Assault (gametype), this is just one way of playing a not-very-notable computer game. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and those other two articles should be deleted as well since there is no notability.Frmorrison (talk) 17:59, 10 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) 18:56, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a game instruction manual and thus would seem to be how to content. The paragraph in the game articles does the job well enough. Dolescum (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a Gameguide/"How-to" website. Fails the GNG too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been watching this article for a while to see if the sources would eventually come: they have not. The term as used in a video game reliable sources search did not show it being used similarly, and the Unreal usage was just as prevalent as different multiplayer modes or air force-style "bombing runs". I could see this redirecting to the glossary but I'd need to see more sources first that even confirm that the Unreal usage is actually prevalent throughout the rest of the industry. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 17:42, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JWChat[edit]

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

This software appears to fail WP:GNG. The only source that actually discusses this software above the level of trivial coverage is Linux.com article (already in the article). The rest of sources I could find either don't even try to discuss this software as opposed to general concept of AJAX-based jabber client. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 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 decker ^talk 16:38, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Tough call, but the linux.com article is the only non-marginal source, and that's just not enough to meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications lease[edit]

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

I'm going to say this is a promotional how to article more then it is an encyclopedia article. I'm not even sure where to start to be able to clean it up and it may need a complete rewrite to make it encyclopedic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see the promotional part. AfD is not for clean-up. Are you invoking WP:TNT? Bearian (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overall; tone is promotional in my opinion phrases such as "Telecom leases can be excellent sources of ancillary income, in some cases providing the landowner with thousands of dollars per month in annual rent." "The telecommunication industry is growing as the need for 4G and 5G networks flourishes. As a result of this growth there is a constant demand for cellular networks to increase their coverage" The footprint and fair market value are too. I initially watchlisted this and have watched it devolved to promoting telecom leases. Hell in a Bucket (talk)

Keep and fix. Results in GBooks indicate that this is a notable topic. If need be, the article can be cut down to a one line stub and rebuilt. Bringing this to AfD just wastes everyone's time and isn't compatible with our editing policy. I have rewritten articles that were much worse than this. Deleting this article will not result in improvements, it will just make the topic disappear. James500 (talk) 19:21, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kurv Operating System[edit]

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

Yet another minor Linux distribution with no obvious claim of notability. Dolescum (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; no references are available. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Zero WP:RS, also WP:CRYSTAL issues. Looks like the start of a class project. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:56, 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 keep. without prejudice to individual renomination j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Prime[edit]

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

Non-notable pulp science-fiction series. These articles are complete unreferenced, and vary from stubs to stubs with long in-universe plot summaries. Some contain "trivia" or "dramatis personae" sections. They offer no encyclopedic content, including reviews, literary analysis. The first novel (Vector Prime) might be notable since it was written by R. A. Salvatore and WP:NBOOKS confers notability to a book just because it was written by a notable author (which seems silly), but the other books are clearly not notable. Most have been tagged for years for improvement, cleanup, and referencing with no material improvement. Mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasoning, and because WP is not a catalog.

-- Mikeblas (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I found that Vector Prime is a New York Times bestseller. Beyond that, I'm having trouble finding evidence of notability. I'm leaning toward a keep for Vector Prime and delete for the others. Let's see what others have to say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Keep. Vector Prime is a bestseller and there was a lot of buzz over Chewbacca, which may have even made the national news back in 1999. Some of the books listed above were bestsellers as well. Frmorrison (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Best seller" status doesn't confer notability per WP:NBOOK. --- Mikeblas (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, that inspired me to do significantly more research. I did quite a few Google searches, but it seems as though I didn't really dig deeply enough. I'm still having trouble finding reviews, but I find coverage for a few of the novels. Here's what I can gather:
- Vector Prime: bestseller coverage coverage
- Boba Fett: A Practical Man: Not notable
- Dark Tide: Onslaught: bestseller
- Dark Tide: Ruin: bestseller
- Agents of Chaos: Hero's Trial: bestseller
- Agents of Chaos: Jedi Eclipse: bestseller
- Balance Point: bestseller
- Emissary of the Void: non-notable
- Recovery: non-notable
- Edge of Victory: Conquest: bestseller
- Edge of Victory: Rebirth: bestseller
- Star by Star: bestseller
- Dark Journey: bestseller
- Ylesia: non-notable
- Enemy Lines: Rebel Dreams: non-notable
- Enemy Lines: Rebel Stand: non-notable
- Traitor: bestseller coverage
- Destiny's Way: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Remnant: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Refugee: bestseller
- Force Heretic: Reunion: bestseller
- The Final Prophecy: bestseller
- The Unifying Force: bestseller

However, WP:NBOOKS doesn't say anything about bestsellers automatically being notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Bundling dozens of novels by multiple mostly notable authors into a single AFD is an abuse of the deletion process. It's also evident that the nominator hasn't complied with WP:BEFORE or made a sufficient effort to verify their claims. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your allegations are baseless and as unfounded as your "keep" vote. Showing notability helps the process; making ad homenim attacks doesn't. Why did you choose the latter? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Star Wars novels get reviewed at places that review this sort of thing. [3] Its ridiculous to delete articles that are confirmed bestsellers, while thinking a book that failed to sell any reasonable number of copies can have an article because two random people reviewed it in a couple of obscure low selling newspapers somewhere. WP:IAR does apply here. Dream Focus 15:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above; re-evaluate information provided here and re-nominate individually or in smaller groups as needed. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Kalibo[edit]

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

No sources to prove that such proposal exists. The only "Metro Kalibo" there is is that of a Water District. Also, not included in the twelve metropolitan areas identified by the National Economic and Development Authority. See Cities of the Philippines#Metropolitan areas. RioHondo (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strangely I find more hits from non-Philippine media for a "Metropolitan Kalibo", but nevertheless there's no coverage I could find for this proposal. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:00, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:05, 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, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 02:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources assert that this is a Metropolitan area.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smarketing[edit]

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

PROD (endorsed by two other editors) removed because creator believes this ghastly and meaningless non-notable neologism is worth an article. I disagree. TheLongTone (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Smarketing Gregkaye (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NEO. This is apparently a non-notable neologism of the portmanteau variety which, with Wikipedia's help, may soon be notable and help lead interested prospects to web sites such as smarketingtx.com. The article is sourced to tweets, blogs, and self-published web sites. This reminds me of Explainer video which quickly became a magnet for all manner of spam. No thanks. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 22:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe not on the mass media but this term is very used in a lot of marketing and sales teams and internal relationships on companies. I don't know what happened with the Explainer video, but the article has been up for almost 2 weeks and none vandalism has occured.

About the notaility issues, let me just link you some pages, to see that this is not a made-up word:

[4] <- This is from the [Singapore Management University]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Luchipe (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and MrX, as WP:NEO. No notability. Slight usage. And yes it is a made-up word, specifically of the portmanteau variety, as MrX pointed out. --Bejnar (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it is good this article was AfD-ed, since it was entirely WP:REFSPAM, with promotional links to marketers hawking Smarketing. The spam is removed, reliable sources added. Notability is established with articles in marketing and sales publications devoted entirely to Smarketing. Not a neologism; term apparently has been in use since 2000. Sources include B2B Smarketing: The 5 Steps To Make Sales and Marketing Work Together, ‘Smarketing’ to the rescue, Smarketing: plus this one, another one, generally notable subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:59, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Exactly, as User:Tomwsulcer says the word has been in the marketing world for many years and is notable enough to keep an article here.Luchipe (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC) ...duplicate vote by page creator struck through.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 5 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 19:20, 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, ‑Scottywong | comment _ 02:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--with kudos for the cleanup, but a few recent articles on this term in some magazines don't add up to encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The general notability guideline is quite clear 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. It is an important concept in the world of marketing, particularly regarding business-to-business marketing. Please can you give a better reason for not following the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't answer loaded questions. I will say, for the sake of redundancy, that this is neither in-depth, significant discussion, nor a reliable source of any kind of standing. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the question "why not?" is loaded. I am merely seeking clarification of your view. I see the Social Media Today site as reliable in that it says essentially what the other references say regarding what Smarketing is all about. There are four other sources including the Journal of Sales & Marketing Management which has been around a long time in the marketing world which are independent, discuss the subject in-depth, and are reliable. Further, more sources can be found, if needed, so I do not understand your 'delete' vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a google searched turned up quite a bit on the topic. It seems to be a neologism that is catching on in a big way. Bali88 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, not a Neologism, do a google search restraining the results from 2000 to 2005 and a lot of results come up. I'll leave here two links:
[10]
[11]

There are a lot of companies that specialise in smarketing, and it has been a growing term over the last years. I guess the notability issue is well passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchipe (talk • contribs) 10:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on the keep/delete spectrum, but I did play around a bit with time-constrained google searches. The earliest I can come up with is http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Editorial/Magazine-Features/Smarketing!-48506.aspx, in January 2000. I'm not sure how neo something has to be to be considered a neologism, but 14-1/2 years seems like enough time to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Dalal[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO, no reasons for notability found in my searches. He was a witness in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and has written a book about that, but that's about it. No significant reviews of the book, no significant political positions, and no significant coverage, so doesn't pass WP:Author, WP:Politician, or WP:BIO. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article currently says he was founder of a small political party and that he shifted to BJP. In here he is referred to as "Delhi Congressman". As the article is about same Rajiv Gandhi assassination case i suppose they are same Dalals. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I assumed they are one and the same as the only coverage for Congressman vs BJP/Delhi vs Haryana was related to the self impleading as a witness in the RG assassination case. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this he's a former congressman. Most of the googles for him focus on the Gandhi case, but he does seem to have some history as a politician. RomanSpa (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he is a former or current member of a state or national parliament, he is automatically notable. But could Congressman in this context mean "supporter of the Congress Party" rather than elected representative? I checked his book Rajiv Gandhi's Assassination: The Mystery Unfolds on Worldcat, and this report says that 37 libraries hold a copy of the book. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Congressman is a loose term to refer to a member or supporter of the Indian National Congress. It should not be confused with the a US member of Congress. —SpacemanSpiff 09:01, 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 01:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete founder of a non-notable party who has not held any political office, no passing of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not Notable for having separate article; should be merged with event linked to Rajiv Gandhi (if important) or else deleted Drsharan (talk) 10:19, 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 19:46, 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, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 02:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the subject of the article is only mentioned in passing in a majority of the sources. Even though he is referred to as a "key witness" by one of them, he still doesn't meet WP:NPERSON. APerson (talk!) 19:57, 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 decker ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Satan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Previous discussion was only kept and barely, because of some members in another band. Notability is not inherited though. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:BAND criteria. Only reference is band's own Myspace page.--Rpclod (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Bali88 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule Team Delete: Wow, what a bunch of crap rationales in the last AfD: "perhaps notable," claims that two obscure (and long-defunct) websites constitute reliable published sources, and references to the previous two. Happily, WP:MUSIC's been tightened up, but this never should have come out a Keep in the first place. Wikipedia isn't for wannabe garage bands who've done a few local gigs. Ravenswing 14:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ravenswing - I never ever criticize anyones comments here but the previous discussion was a complete and utter joke, "perhaps notable to that group of people" is quite simply an utterly stupid thing to say!, Anyway that was then and this is now - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:01, 24 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. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Majesty[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. The AllMusic ref is a user review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per the Cross Rhythms review cited in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Look to You. I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S, apart from a throwaway mention in Christianity Today/Crosswalk.com. On the cusp of notability, but not quite. However, I also found a Cross Rhythms review of double-disc reissue of King of Majesty/Look to You. I'd suggest merging the content of this article with Look To You.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hillsong Music Australia, not notable per ¿3family6. --Bejnar (talk) 04:51, 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 00:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it has a solid review from Cross Rhythms as well as an AllMusic mention. The album only has one solid review, so I voted for a Weak Keep rather than a full Keep. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:31, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 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, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 01:59, 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 decker ^talk 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Allen[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:AUTHORS JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Cambrure[edit]

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

A short film with no indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable work associated with the great director Eric Rohmer, and moreover the first digital cinema production to be presented in a commercial theater, as documented in multiple sources already included in the article. The synopsis could be improved (and we may need recourse to French language sources for that), but why would we not want to have verified content about this little landmark? --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Rohmer. Doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage, just a few mentions. Has many non-notable people attached to it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional substantial coverage is apparent at GBooks, although only snippets are visible: e.g. Cahiers du cinéma [12], Etudes cinématographiques [13], The Independent Film & Video Monthly [14], Cahiers du cinéma España [15]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2014‎
Keep a suitable stub that meets WP:NF (see WP:OEN). It makes and verifies notable aspects of itself as a film. Not every film is world-wide box-office blockbuster... and does not need to be in order to be notable. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep baseless nom, the cited (and the non-cited) multiple RS are a clear "indication of notability". Cavarrone 09:08, 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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Animal Jam[edit]

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

Just another free-to-play game. Article reads as a game guide, uses primary sources and fansites as sources. Does not deserve an article. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this one. There is significant coverage here (site ranked by Alexa as #752/1,873 overall in US/Global web rankings). and a lot of other non-trivial coverage out there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's enough for its own article but I did find a couple of sources: [16], [17]. Sam Walton (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this page much less like a game guide and much more like a wiki I removed the list of animals and other things game guide. lawiki1534 (talk)

It's mostly the ips making it a game guide. lawiki 1534

Keep. So it doesn't make me proud, but I think this article passes the GNG between the following WP:VG/RS sources in order of strength:

http://www.gamezebo.com/2013/01/03/animal-jam-review/
http://kotaku.com/5603235/national-geographic-brings-out-the-animal-in-you
http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/16/national-geographic-virtual-world-animal-jam-hits-a-million-kids/
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20609141_20616958,00.html

Yes, it would be stubby, and I'd be a proponent of a merge into a National Geographic games article (to share with stubs like Kinect Nat Geo TV, but until then, it passes the GNG enough to stick around. czar ♔ 03:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Five reliably sourced references pushes it across the notability threshold for a stub IMHO. Czar's suggested future merge to National Geographic games is a good one. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's a free-to-play game doesn't exactly constitute deletion, Also, There aren't too many more reliable third party sources because no-one really has an official list or anything except fansites and sources from the creators, but fansites are still third party technically, The article is still pretty reliable and i personally don't think it should be deleted. --69.166.78.85 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fan sites are definitively not reliable sources. A list of approved video game sources is available at WP:VG/RS. As for the article's current state, it's unsourced and in need of gutting. That doesn't change that the topic has coverage (mentioned above) that could replace its currently unacceptable state. czar ♔ 05:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It does need significant cleanup, But there aren't really to many sources except game guides, fansites, or Official sources for many things, So, It's gonna be a very "large" cleanup for the article, That is, If a cleanup starts, Anyways, That's what i think. --69.166.78.85 (talk) 14:55, 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 procedural keep. This belongs at WP:RFD, not here. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Holocaust[edit]

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

Unprofessional, unacademic, not widely accepted term. Should not redirect to 1948 Palestinian exodus. Also recommend that the corresponding talk page be deleted, at the very least --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 01:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:13, 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.