Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 July	21 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee May (Georgia politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on a single primary source with no evidence of substantive coverage in reliable ones, of a person notable only as a politician at the county level — which is not a level of government that normally confers notability under WP:POLITICIAN. I suppose he might qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article, but this, as written, is barely more than a prosified version of a résumé — I'm also a bit troubled by the possibility of conflict of interest here, as the creator is User:Emories and the subject is a graduate of Emory University. Delete unless much better sourcing than this, supporting a much more substantively and encyclopedically written article, can be salvaged out of this by close. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - County executives (sometimes titled county judge or county CEO) are not automatically notable; nor are they always non-notable. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having been a county executive isn't Truman's primary notability claim, though — he has an article because he went on to hold a series of higher offices more notable than just a county executive position. If "county executive" is the person's primary notability claim, however, then the resulting article has to be sourced almost infinitely better than this to qualify as notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A much better example of a person notable for being a county executive is Robert A. Ficano, the current county executive of Wayne County, Michigan. Of course since Wayne County has approximately 2 million people it is a different story, and Ficano gets lots of coverage, much of it negative. Kym Worthy has not had many nice things to say about Ficano, for example. That said, the article on May has a vast lack of sourcing, DeKalb County is not equivalent to Wayne County, maybe more Mark Hackel or L. Brooks Patterson level, the executives of the two main suburban counties in Metro Detroit. Though I would say the Patterson article is weak, giving too much attention to an incident early this year when Patterson was attacked for an out-of-context quote from about 1980. The fact that Patterson has been County Executive for 22 years, and was County Prosecutor for 16 before that and before that took a major case to the Supreme Court make him very different than May who actually is only an interim county executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 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 speedied G11 by User:Deb. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Conway Productions[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a theatrical production company with a dubious claim to meeting WP:CORP — as written, in fact, it's dancing perilously close to being an advertisement ("The formula blazed a trail that has since been followed...") rather than an encyclopedia article — although not blatant enough to trigger my speedy reflex. Delete unless the article can be properly sourced to real reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not wasting time on this. I already speedied it once and gave the creator a warning. Will repeat that exercise. Deb (talk) 11:59, 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 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kandegas[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up nothing which could demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to pass WP:ARTIST. I have looked for sources but those that I can find are insufficient to separately meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Chambers[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an architect, relying exclusively on primary sources for referencing with no evidence of reliable source coverage to make her a notable architect. Delete unless the sourcing and notability claim can be suitably beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The student scholarship does not provde encyclopaedic notability and I can find nothing better. Fails all WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references don't support the subject as notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winners of scholarships are virtually never notable for that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Prunty[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying exclusively on the subject's own website (a primary source that cannot confer notability) for referencing, of a musician and composer with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Delete unless the referencing and notability claim can be appropriately beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 20 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) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is another one of those cases where I'm sure I'm about to bold "kill it with fire" and am just doing the searches to verify what I already know. But I was wrong. Prunty passes the GNG with flying colors with WP:VG/RS sources:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/21/ftl-faster-than-light-soundtrack-ben-prunty/
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/28/show-us-your-rig-ftl-composer-ben-prunty/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/a-years-income-composed-on-a-banjo-the-man-behind-ftls-music
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/ben-prunty-gives-us-a-guided-tour-of-the-ftl-soundtrack#/entry/signin

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/07/12/ftl-faster-than-lights-music-gets-dissected-and-explained-by-its-composer/

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/21/behind-the-sounds-hotline-miami-and-ftl/
http://www.gamesradar.com/soundradar-ftl-composer-ben-prunty/

czar ♔ 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of those, I'm willing to withdraw this if some of those sources actually find their way into the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Czar. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Czar above. I should remind Bearcat that the only requirement is that the sources exist, not that they be added to the article (though of course it would be nice): WP:N#Article content does not determine notability. — Gwalla | Talk 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPs are held to different standards than other articles. If he were an inanimate object or an organization, it would be sufficient for reliable sources to demonstrably exist whether they were actually in the article or not — but to support a BLP, at least one or two reliable sources have to actually be in the article as written or it still can't stick around. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but since the references have been shown to exist, I don't think there's anything to be gained by holding it hostage to a nomination when you can just add those references yourself and be done with it. — Gwalla | Talk 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources were in the article. Your stated concern was therefore notability. WP:N#Article content does not determine notability applies. 78.19.26.160 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources don't count for anything. A BLP has to have at least one reliable source already in it as written, or it still isn't entitled to stick around regardless of what notability claims it does or doesn't make. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Christian College[edit]

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

Failed PROD on technicality. Organisation appears to be no longer functional but it is highly debatable whether it ever met the criteria for WP:GNG, as there do not appear to be any ghits out-of-universe, the article conveys no information beyond what would be found on an organisation's own website, created by a WP:SPA. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any credible evidence that this organization exists or ever did. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the deprodder is correct that "notability is not temporary", what he failed to take into account is that this article as written never actually established any notability in the first place, due to the lack of any reliable sourcing — and even more importantly, its existence or lack thereof isn't even verifiable as things currently stand. No prejudice against future recreation in the unlikely event that somebody can actually create a substantive, properly sourced article about this purported "degree-granting institution", but this version absolutely has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [1] shows:

Secretary of State ID: C2365203

Incorporation Date: 10/18/2001

Franchise Tax Board Suspension 09/01/2009

No reason to doubt that the school was a degree granting institution. Article fails WP:V and the topic fails WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the circumstantial evidence that the school never really existed is pretty compelling. All those items show is that someone was at least thinking about creating a college, nothing more. The complete absence of any other information on the web strongly suggests that the school never actually got off the ground. Of course that's not irrefutable evidence. But it is very strong evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without you showing your searches, other editors have no way of knowing what you are or are not finding. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into debating whether the school ever really existed or not. It's true that without good sourcing we can't actually prove that it ever did exist, but without a source which explicitly states that it didn't exist we can't actually prove your theory either. So let's just stick to the fact that we can't find any good sources about it — a fact which blows it out of the water regardless of whether it existed or not — instead of wasting our time speculating about why that's the case. (A propos of nothing, you did notice that Unscintillating agreed with you and me both that the article should be deleted, right?) Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not appear to exist. Frmorrison (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many topics covered in the encyclopedia that don't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, somebody formed a corporation. That's hardly the same thing as operating a college. According to the IRS, the corporation is not registered with them, has no physical address (just "Ripon, California"), and "may no longer exist." They incorporated in 2001; the last time they filed a financial report with the IRS was in 2003, when they showed income of (ready?) $13,300.[2] Anybody believe they were ever an actual degree granting institution, with that kind of budget? Anyone? --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? Is that what is being taught to leaders in society now on the peninsula? That is more money than millions of Wikipedia editors make. That same link you provided also shows that Form 990's are available for 2004, 2005, and 2006; which makes for a good correlation with the dates that web.archive.org provides for snapshots of the school's website. Unscintillating (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC

How much money people make is irrelevant. The point is that you could not operate even a tiny college on this kind of budget. You couldn't rent space, you couldn't hire a single instructor. I really don't understand why you are arguing so much about this subject after you !voted delete. What is your point exactly? MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support good workmanship at AfDs, even when the topic is wp:non-notable? In your last post, your first sentence states that salaries are irrelevant, then the third sentence implies that non-zero salaries are required. If you recall, City Seminary of Sacramento is a school physically located in a church. Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat and think we are perhaps splitting legal hairs here. While I do think that the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that this school never got off the ground, it's a moot point. As of this post all of the comments and !votes agree that the subject of the article fails basic tests for notability including V and should be deleted. I see little to be gained by debating a point that is irrelevant to the end result of this AfD and cannot be conclusively proven one way or another with available sources. May I respectfully suggest we move on? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I tried to look at the college website, and it is a broken link. I tried to search for another without success. It may exist or have existed, but was probably very small and now defunct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenhower baseball controversy[edit]

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

While a fascinating read, this article does not seem to stand up to actual scrutiny. I'm not sure if it's either a well-written hoax or self-published original research, but this does not seem to be an actual notable controversy. The sources cited here are simply the facts and statistics from which the OR was cobbled together, and my attempts to find other sources just brought up blogs or forums which seemed to base all information only on this Wikipedia page. The original author seems to have stopped editing, otherwise perhaps he or she could clear some of this up. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those, like me, who attempt to find better sources but aren't sure if they're not simply based off of the OR in this article, have a look at the publishing dates and the choice of what information is written.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, wait, maybe I spoke to soon, may have found something. Regardless, the article will need a complete renovation considering it is all just OR, but the story may not actually be baseless, and it looks like I may be retracting this AfD. I'm looking into it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I sound like I'm talking to myself like a crazy person. But it does seem that there are reliable sources that mention, some just in passing, that Eisenhower played in the minor leagues. However, the "controversy" may be what was OR and not notable enough for its own page. There's a Chicago Tribune article that discusses the controversy, but we'd need another reliable source basing it off more than just the wikipedia entry to decide if the topic was worth an article of its own.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- Sorry everyone, I'd like to retract this AfD. While the article is poorly done and only uses OR as sources, there does seem to be enough information available from reliable sources to keep this. It may work better not as a standalone article, but I'll see how it turns out. Sorry for the trouble.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:23, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.A.Scott Kelso[edit]

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

Article might not pass notability guideline. It was still being written as I nominated so I leave it to the community to decide if the subject is worthy of a page. RWCasinoKid (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A-10 as a poor duplicate of the J. A. Scott Kelso article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete agree with above. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 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 deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raghuraman - Best Colourist, Kerala State Film Award[edit]

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

After being speedily deleted three times, let's put this subject on discussion. This is clearly an autobiography. Google search shows some results [3], but not many, and all are connected to "Kerala state film awards". There are other people with the same name, so it's bit hard to search for sources. I can't find any significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion G4 (already tagged): This has already been at AfD, closed just yesterday as a deletion. Since then it appears to have been recreated under a couple more variant names, all by the same (autobiographical) contributor. (The award which has now appeared in the article title was already considered as part of the previous AfD.) AllyD (talk) 20:32, 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. The only thing that crashed is this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomsonfly Flight 4263[edit]

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

Non notable aviaiton incident. Birds get sucked into airplane engines all the time. ...William 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions....William 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom .... Other than the bird no one died, or was injured, My condolences to the birds parents at this difficult time. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Sidenote: best delete rationalization ever. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, hardly as newsworthy as the Malaysian plane disaster last week. RWCasinoKid (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going through the suggestions at WP:AIRCRASH, this incident clearly does not reach the notability standards even to be included on the airline's page. No hull loss, no resultant change in procedures, not a criminal act (eg terrorism), no loss of life, etc. The incident does not even appear to pass the general notability guidelines, namely WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT (the historical significance requirement.) Move for deletion, perhaps a brief mention on the bird strike article at the most. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY. Isn't a WP:AIRCRASH. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bird ingestions occur all the time. The death of the birds has more notability than the article itself...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - routine incident that doesn't merit mention anywhere per WP:AIRCRASH and separately fails WP:GNG. Incidentally, the one reliable source in the article refers to a different event! The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:09, 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 keep. Note: Nice work on article improvement, folks, thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purappadu[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted at AfD last year. Still doesn't seem to clearly meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I'm not an editor of the article and is unrelated to the article but if you look at the contributions of the articles creator you will understand that he has made a lot of similar articles which has not been (not yet) marked for deletion, doesn't his suggest something? If you don't see thing the same way I do, feel free to state your counter argument but i strongly disagree for the deletion of this article (and the other similar articles too, if proposed for deletion). This article is widening Wikipedia:WikiProject_India and more over Wikipedia:WikiProject Kerala. (Rovinemessage) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the previous nomination for deletion of this article too. (Rovinemessage) 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Rovine, the last AfD for this ended in 'delete'. It's irrelevant whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, how does it meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Can find evidence of its existence but not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment part of the problem may be the title given by the creator of the article. While usually listed as Purappadu in India, it is Purappad at IMDb. The other problem is that Indian newspapers which would have covered it are not online for 1990. The consensus in India seems to be that despite having a lot of star quality actors in it and getting a big send up (large advertising budget) that it was a flop at the box office. Nonetheless, it is treasured for some of its songs (like Doore Doore) and as part of the creative work of Mammootty and Sithara. It is one of the thirteen Malayalam films listed by David Courtney at "Indian Film Events and the Year 1990". "Purappadu" refers to "a character's entrance" in a play or during a religious ceremony, and has a particular meaning in classical Indian dance. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete per WP:G4 LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact same article? If not, then G4 is inapplicable. However, I have an opinion below that serves our readers. :) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Purappadu

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

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

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

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

Always tough finding sources for 1990 India films, Malayalam language of that era even tougher. As we can at least verify title and director, let's redirect this title to notable director Jeassy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the sourcing is poor, but that's the case for a lot of Indian films from that period, even Bollywood. Generally with a notable cast of actors and director this should be acceptable on here, but we also need to demonstrate some sort of coverage. It would be good if a Malayalam speaker could find the native title and some sources in Malayalam as I'm pretty sure it would have sources for it in Malayalam newspapers etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied that an entry in the Malayalam Film Encyclopedia and the fact that it has a notable cast a crew (particular the cinematographer and the lyricist O. N. V. Kurup who are eminent personalities in the industry) that this meets guidelines for films on here. 90% of Indian films have poor sourcing in English online. Are we to delete them all or try to nurture them into better articles and try to encourage Indian editors to visit libraries and research in newspapers? I'm sure given time such films will have coverage in English books. I know a lot of the old Hindi ones gradually are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for പുറപ്പാട് throws up many results. A lot are for other meanings of Exodus, but a lot are clearly for this film. It is by a major director and has a star-studded cast. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it is difficult to find many high-quality sources from national newspapers for Malayalam films of that period. But the film appears to be a popular one from that industry, so I am sure that a Malayali speaking editor may help us find some local sources in the language.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You needed a Malayali's opinion, you got one :> You wouldn't find, unfortunately, malayalam language publishings in the 90's internet as it a language spoken only in South India (though by around 35 million+) and not a general medium of communication like English or Chinese for someone to sit down a create their ASCII values. It was only in the early 2000s that soft scripts of malayalam became easily available for typing and publishing on the internet and even more time for malayalam newspapers to publish soft daily copies. But , regarding the film , it should be noted that the film has won state awards and is mentioned in the Government's PRD website. Also apart from all lead actors, directors , singers being higly appreciated for their contribution towards malayam cinema , it is also one of the early noted films of the lead actor Mammootty , who went on to receive one of the highest civilian awards by the Indian Government ,the Padma Shri .So, too many notable people involved in the film to be consider for deletion. Thank you -- Sahil 07:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs)
Keep as per WP:HEY. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per the well-reasoned comments below mine. My thoughts above about a redirect are now my second choice. The stub which was first nominated has received major attention, improving it to show the to show this non-English topic as making it into the permanent records for its time and place. Kudos to Dr. Blofeld. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:27, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CK Morgan[edit]

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

This article was already deleted in January after an AFD discussion, but was now recreated. I don't know if the new article is "substantially different" from the deleted one, so I don't want to use speedy deletion. The main problem seams to be the Notability. Sources are poor, not reliable, not independent. The author is probably the subject himself (WP:Autobiography). The photo in the article (File:Ck Morgan (Golden).jpg) is uploader's "own work", and since I can't find it anywhere on the web, my conclusion is that the uploader is CK Morgan himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems promotional and there just isn't that much coverage in reliable independent sources. Indicative is the blank bio at MTV (or is my Internet acting up again?). --Bejnar (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current version is better referenced than the deleted version, and appears to have some added material, but it's hard to tell because there was a lot of editing going on before the deletion. This sockpuppet investigation indicates that there was a problem with unreferenced additions to the article, and that it was also recreated at a couple of other titles. I'm reluctant to offer an opinion on notability because I do see some Ghanaian media sources referenced; he doesn't appear to meet the specific notability standards for musicians but he might meet WP:GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a few more Ghanaian hits in this edit, but I don't see reliable sources there or anywhere else. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete i dont think this page should be deleted as they are other artist who only have two references but their wikipedia is still there,im not even done with this page theres a lot of more articles i have found that i want to add if i get the chance to add them but if theres anyway anyone could help to improve this article would be epic too unsigned, but added by Upcloseandpersonal2 talk, 03:27, 21 July 2014‎ UTC— Upcloseandpersonal2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why this type of argument is not apprpriate in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. What, again? Same promotional article, same creator, same non-notable subject, same waste of time for everyone. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 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 14:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SYKOM[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this self-published novel. Speedy and PROD disputed previously. Dolescum (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Promotional. Not even the slightest indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD analysis, an upcoming to-be-self-published novel without any sign of any potential for independent coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G11 promotional only, despite the thin veneer of apparent objectivity. Otherwise, this is pure nothing, no book (WP:TOOSOON), first novel, self-published, no independent sources, two non-existent sequels, etc. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's only one sentence (in the "Development" section) which crosses the grossly promotional line, and that can be easily removed. G11 standards don't depend on the subject's underlying notability, and the text would be acceptable (albeit lousy) if the book were notable. This is going to be a snow deletion; no need to expand speedy criteria to rush a foregone conclusion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Fails WP:GNG WP:CREATIVE etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close In ictu oculi (talk) 04:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Quest[edit]

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

Book series that fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is really a list in a series of books, not a book article. Also I if deleted could make some articles orphans. Frmorrison (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Series of books from highly notable (National Book Award winning) author. Nom provides no analysis, no claim of absence of potential sourcing/commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Face (meme)[edit]

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

only reference provided is completely unreliable. we would need serious comment to have an article, or even a mention on a list of memes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it's possible to provide a reliable reference to a meme, let alone the Troll Face meme. Know Your Meme is already a dictionary/encyclopedia of memes. It even has its own Wikipedia page. Wikipedia doesn't need to supplant it. I agree with this deletion. Miguel (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We don't need articles on every single internet meme, Know Your Meme does the job just fine. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable source and notability. - DVdm (talk) 17:43, 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 merge to The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy in the Striped Pajamas (characters)[edit]

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

This is an article about the characters of the book. By the way, it is misspelled, the book title is "The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas". There are no sources at all. wp:GNG requires reliable sources to prove the notability of the subject. The notability of the book is apparent, but I don't see any evidence to prove that the book characters are separately notable. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the spelling, the book appears to have both American ("Pajamas") and British ("Pyjamas") editions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I totally agree, this article is in no way a stand-alone. If anything it should be added as a section to the The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas page, if necessary for that page. Otherwise, it should be deleted entirely. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Something like this, being unsourced, skirts the edge of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Honest people may differ on whether it actually is. My view is that so long as the information is accurate, it's perfectly mergeable. Clearly fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone article an in-universe list of characters about whom there is no substantial independently published coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Florida Gators football. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Football Ring of Honor[edit]

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

I propose to Merge this article to Florida Gators football. While there is no doubt in my mind that the subject award is notable per WP:GNG, having received significant media coverage when it was started and with every subsequent inductee, this article lacks the substance of a stand-alone article and always will. The subject has been artificially separated from its natural parent article, Florida Gators football, and should be merged with a section-specific redirect thereto. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, it makes the most sense to merge as a section in Florida Gators football, not sure why this wasn't done in the first place. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by an enthusiastic Gators fan, and I won't fault him for that. Too often in sports-related AfDs, we focus only on whether the subject satisfies the specific and/or general notability guidelines while forgetting that notability is only the first step. For some subjects such as this one, it makes more sense to combine them with other closely related topics in order to provide the reader with a wider perspective on the subject area. There is a section of awards and honors for Gator football players in the parent article, and the description and list of honorees for this award belongs at the top of that section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's conceded that the subject is notable, as Dirtlawyer states, then this really ought to be a merger discussion rather than at AfD. See Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I considered using both an article talk page discussion and the proposed merger venue. The article has fewer than 30 watchers, and only two substantive (non-category, non-vandalism) text edits (one by myself included) in the last three years, and I fear that any talk page discussion simply will not attract any attention. As a practical matter, no discussion has closed at the proposed merger page in three months. I do not believe there is any policy that precludes using AfD to accomplish a merge, and as we all know the practical difference between a delete, a redirect and a merge is a pretty fine line. I also considered just doing it boldly myself, but I figured AfD would be the venue where I could get the most eyes on the article, probably with the most CFB expertise, in the quickest possible manner. AfDs are usually closed in 7 to 14 days, talk page merge discussions for minor articles never close (if they even attract any participation), and the merge page, well, it's currently running 90 days behind on non-controversial, unopposed merges. If this AfD strikes you as inappropriate under the circumstances, I will withdraw this AfD. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thinking, but I am wary of using the AfD procedure on an article that admittedly satisfies notability standards. On balance, I don't think AfD should be used to expedite a merger discussion. Even if it is slow or unwieldy, merger discussions (where both articles meet notability standards) should be dealt with by the established merger procedure. Cbl62 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: How about we keep this AfD open for a couple more days, and then transfer the whole discussion to the article talk page? You could then administratively close the AfD as "no consensus," etc., without prejudice to the talk page discussion . . . would that satisfy your procedural concerns? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I appreciate that a topic like this might be best handled within the context of a section of the related team, in this case Florida Gators football is already a sprawling, nearly unreadable piece. It makes perfectly good sense for a detailed "subsidiary" topic like this to exist to help keep that root article from being even more overblown and cluttered. I don't think anyone would really argue that this is not a notable topic — or at least I don't hear that coming from the nominator. I suggest that a withdrawal of the AfD nomination might be appropriate here. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: A quick review of the "sprawling" Florida Gators football article revealed two large lists within the parent article that duplicated existing stand-alone list articles (List of Florida Gators football seasons and List of Florida Gators football All-Americans). The duplicate/redundant text has now been removed from the parent article, with the insertion of brief introductions and links to the stand-alone articles now inserted. This is how article spin-offs are supposed to work: large sections that can provide the substantive content for stand-alone articles or lists are spun off with links to and from the parent article. In the case of this brief article for the Ring of Honor, you can readily see that it has a fraction of the content of these other two spin-offs. In fact, a couple of three- to five-sentence paragraphs of content from this article could appropriately be inserted and replace the section entitled "Retired jersey numbers," with no appreciable increase in the size of the parent article. Given that inductions into the Ring of Honor happen very infrequently (e.g., Heisman trophy winners, national championship coaches, Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, etc.), this section is not likely to grow much any time soon, either. It's really where this brief award content belongs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dirtlawyer1. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:58, 18 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 16:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dirtlawyer1, as well. There's just not enough independent info to justify an independent article. Zeng8r (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to HBO. Note that while this has been closed as "merge and redirect", I have not redirected the article to HBO, to enable merging (after which it's customary for a redirect to be performed). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HBO First Look[edit]

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

A series of marketing material that airs on HBO; lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Not at all notable, failing WP:GNG/WP:N. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree, Google has zero results for news related to the AfD subject, fails WP:GNG Abroham1024 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to HBO. Definitely not notable for an article but certainly reasonable to include on HBO's page and a search term. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to HBO Pretty much a show consisting of studio material later put on DVD's as extras but with HBO graphics and production (and sometimes used as such on the DVD's themselves); non-notable by itself. Nate • (chatter) 08:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to HBO per everyone above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to HBO. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:32, 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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flexenclosure[edit]

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

Non notable company, the awards are not what they appear: for example, in 2011 there were several dozen International Green award winners in various categories. The other awards are for quite narrow categories also, Thje references are mere notices of particular projects. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a bit perplexed at this nomination. The awards might not be very important, but awards aren'tr necessary for notability. Non-notable companies do not get "mere notices of projects" (=articles about specific projects) published in mainstream newspapers across multiple continents. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept. It's pretty niche but seems like worthwhile knowledge for those in the business. HenryVanBaal (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to say it should be kept as well. Seems like noteworthy awards. per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit of Truth[edit]

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

Notability is dubious, I've removed a load of unsourced BLP violations, any objections to deletion? Ϣere SpielChequers 21:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability failure. References 1-3 are dead links, 4 is a passing mention and 5 is a disallowed blog. No other significant topic coverage found in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was a trainwreck. It still needs a lot of work, but after a few changes just now at least it resembles something encyclopedic. My connection is terrible right now so I still have a lot more digging to do, but I do have to say I'm surprised finding sources isn't easier here. This is a meme that flies by my eyeballs on social media or in conversation at least a couple times a year since 2006. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Given the Tosh.0, Howard Stern, Web Junk 20, and other less impressive coverage (even if their links are presently dead -- I'll get around to fixing that), and the high likelihood of additional sources (admittedly influenced by my own pre-AfD familiarity with the subject), I'd say it passes WP:GNG. Conceding "weak" for now, but hoping to change that when I or someone else can find more sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If kept, this should be renamed to The Spirit of Truth (program). As Spirit of Truth is a reference to the Holy Spirit. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a problem with the title. For many Christians the Spirit of Truth is a reference to the Holy Spirit, for some Native Americans it is a reference to the spirit of the Earth or the spirit of the Universe, and for some Hindus it refers to universal compassion. Bartzokas. Compassion: The Spirit of Truth. And of course there is the idiom, without caps, meaning "the intention" of the document as opposed to the exact specifications.--Bejnar (talk) 02:05, 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, -- John Reaves 22:54, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has been two weeks and none of the sources that Rhododendrites suggested might exist have been forthcoming. So absent adequate reliable sources, this fails WP:GNG. See my comment above about not using this title if recreated. --Bejnar (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral Most of the citations have now been rescued, and I have added a link to the assessment (status: confirmed) at Know Your Meme. However, notability still seems borderline to me, and KYM rather than Wikipedia is a suitable resting-place for dead memes. If not deleted, it should be renamed as agreed above, e.g. "The Spirit of Truth (television)". – Fayenatic London 19:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a confirmed meme, i.e. verifible, but the recovered citation sources still do not add up to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote to Neutral on notability, as I don't want to stand in the way of a consensus to delete. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Seon-min[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim to meeting WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:34, 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 Speedy Deleted (A10) by AlexF. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

সুনিতা উইলিয়ামস[edit]

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

Not in proper language section Miguel (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for সুনিতা উইলিয়ামস

Comment the article appears to be in Bengali and about Sunita Williams. There is no article at the bn Wikipedia under this title so speedy deletion in accordance with CSD A2 would not be appropriate. Now to look at the actual article ... --Bejnar (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The article is there, under the title "Paradox of Equilibrium", with a photo of Sunita Williams and linked to her article in English Wikipedia. That is all I can say. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD A10, fully covered in the Sunita Williams article. This add nothing. --Bejnar (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bejnar. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VanJess[edit]

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

Band sourced entirely to primary and unreliable sources (mostly blogs), with no substantive claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to an actual notability claim here, in fact, is "got X number of views for a YouTube video", which as always is not a legitimate claim of notability if it cannot be referenced to real sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, does not meet WP:NMUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiToeness (talk • contribs) 21:48, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom and Luigi. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment T.U.R.N. Magazine looks as if it might be a reliable source, I am less sanguine about Perez Hilton. --Bejnar (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Maybe someday ... --- Mikeblas (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Thomas (Welsh footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer - never played for first team in fully professional league Zanoni (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Zanoni (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Zanoni (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Homophobic actions consitute WP:BLP1E, not sufficient for notability. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for his football career (per WP:NFOOTBALL), not notable for his criminal career (per WP:CRIME), not notable in general (per WP:GNG). Giant Snowman 15:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:34, 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. After giving very little weight to the new accounts here that did not make arguments based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there is a consensus here that article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttering Hexagon[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Poorly-sourced promotional article lacks third-party sources or evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Sourced with primary sources, blogs, and an Amazon link. Google Scholar search shows little in the way of reliable third-party coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. From the talk page and history someone is being paid to edit this on WP which is completely unacceptable; other than that per nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Google scholar has "Developing a new paradigm for stuttering." listed as cited twice. While practitioners Bodenhamer and Margolina, and a couple of others, mention or use the hexagon, it has not caught on so as to meet the paradigm equivalent of WP:ACADEMIC#1. It is not a reason for deletion, but it is interesting that the Stuttering article, at the time I write this, did not mention the hexagon or J. Harrison. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article needs some work on the citing of the sources and editing but removing completely is a bit irrational. Maybe just tag it for improvement? Klokus (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Klokus (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) — Emilysantoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I am adding notable Academic sources to the article. Stuttering Hexagon is a very important concept to the stuttering community and to individuals like me who stuttered severely until this concept changed my way of looking at stuttering. (Shaktisviolin (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)) — Shaktisviolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Due the the presence of WP:SPA accounts giving non-policy-based reasons to keep this paid article, it appears that there may be sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting going on. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

° ′″Comment" shaktisviolin is the one who created this article and since this is my first article, that is why I am not an old-hand at this. I created this article, but then I asked for help with an edit because I didn't know it was against the rules or that I would be accused of sockpuppeting. I did not get the proper references on at first because I didn't understand the kind of references that were required. I am still not through with the reference page because all links aren't present yet but I think I'm getting the hang of it. Bear with me. Please??? (Shaktisviolin (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep In my opinion the page should be kept live for improvement. I found that two of the largest and most prestigious stuttering communities in the world (the British Stammering Association and the National Stuttering Association) support the Stuttering Hexagon. Both Harrison and Alan Badmington have delivered Keynotes to those conventions about the Stuttering Hexagon. There is no 'one' cure in the stuttering community, but only viable theories...and this is a viable theory that has been published and talked about in the stuttering community for 30 years.Hillysilly (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hillysilly (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment - There seem to be similar WP:SPAs in this AfD as were in Articles for deletion/Madison McKinley and which were suspected of being sockpuppets and an admitted paid editor. Whichever Admin closes this is advised to check that AfD... --Jersey92 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also, when the Keep support is from WP:SPAs, an editor who admits being paid on another article, and a strongly suspected sockpuppet one has to wonder if this (possibly promotional) article really can stand on its own two feet. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hereby declare that I am giving my concern against the deletion assuming good faith as per wikipedia guidlines. I found this page in the AFD List and thought I should give my concern after going through the page of Stuttering Hexagon. I would like to state that it should be given a chance for improvement on the basis of the following link. [http://bookzz.org/book/899940/70e2ec� Bookzz Org]

More in-depth research required. Editors are invited to edit the page to improve the quality and standards of the page as per wikipedia guidelines.Cristine nickol (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Delete The whole thing reads as if it were a case study. The tone violates WP:NPOV and the sourcing leaves much to be desired. Ish dar ian 06:26, 29 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 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Ainsworth[edit]

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

Not notable. PRODed and de-PRODed but issues haven't been addressed. Certainly a real author but their works seems to have gained no recognition; nowhere near enough for notability per WP:AUTHOR. References amount to a couple of sentences in a list and directories. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete none of the sources establish WP:AUTHOR being met. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 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 redirect to Land-use forecasting. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Land Use Model[edit]

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

"Article" only contains a meaningless, confusing, misleading and unreferenced sentence. Even if there might be specific notable land use models, there is nothing in this article to be kept. ELEKHH^T 12:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Land-use forecasting. Nothing salvageable but this looks a useful redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:27, 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. Although I sympathize with the "merge" argument, there doesn't seem to be a ready merge target. If anybody would like to work on this, I'm prepared to move it to their userspace. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Department of English at the University of Groningen[edit]

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

A long text about history of a single department of a Dutch university. The university is clearly notable. It is divided into faculties, they may be notably, though there is not a single article about a faculty of the University of Groningen. The faculties in the Dutch system are divided into departments, which in some exceptional situations can be notable (for example, the one I am working at is notable). But a history of a department, in my opinion, is way over the top. Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with nom. Full of primary sources and of zero interest to someone outside the department. LibStar (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If any department at this university is notable, then the Department of English surely is from its long history and influence in the Netherlands. However this artcile is far to long, so move it to Department of English at the University of Groningen, trim it down and widen its scope to cover aspects of the Department other than its history. In spite of what Libstar says. this material is interesting and it should not be entirely lost from Wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, history of department itself not notable, could be trimmed and merged to a department or the university article. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 30 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 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sio-Iong Ao[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Engineeringletters.com (as listed in the ref) is ranked at #4,902,405 on Alexa, showing it's not reliable at all. Other references (mainly theses) cannot be the sole evidences proving the notability of this person, and the links to some university websites look not satisfying. I tried to search around the web but no Chinese and English news reports or third-party introductions were found. Note: I've also started a deletion proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia out of the above reasons. It would be great if you can provide any reliable info directly showing "Sio-Iong Ao" is worth to be included in an Encyclopedia. Thanks. Kou Do u 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kou Do u 11:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Kou Do u 11:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:16, 20 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article and references suggest a scientist who has written a few scientific articles, developed some code and owns a business or two on the side. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article focuses primarily on his academic rather than business accomplishments but notability under WP:PROF is not evident, and the article also does not present sources that could show notability as a businessman. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 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 redirect to Casa de Mi Padre. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casa de Mi Padre (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This song hasn't entered any record charts. Simon (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casa de Mi Padre. Erick (talk) 05:54, 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 speedy delete as G11 (spam) and also as a recreation of a previously deleted article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D-Variable Concept[edit]

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

Original research. Non-notable neologism apparently coined by the article creator. Zero relevant search hits for "d-variable concept", "d-variable optimization", "derived variable concept" or "derived variable optimization". Kolbasz (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 10:52, 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 redirect to Swedish Football Division 4. As a redirect being essentially the same as a deletion and there being no opposition to a deletion, I chose to close the AfD nomination a day before the scheduled closure and help eliminate a backlog. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svalövs BK[edit]

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

No claims in the article supports notability, as of WP:FOOTY. Sweden do have a national cup, but there is no mentioning of participation in the cup. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:02, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Football Division 4 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 12:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no indication the team has ever taken part in the national stage of any competition, so fails WP:FOOTYN. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage for any other activity. Fenix down (talk) 15:09, 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 redirect to Swedish Football Division 3. As a redirect being essentially the same as a deletion and there being no opposition to a deletion, I chose to close the AfD nomination a day before the scheduled closure and help eliminate a backlog. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gullringens GoIF[edit]

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

No claims in the article supports notability, as of WP:FOOTY. Sweden do have a national cup, but there is no mentioning of participation in the cup. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:02, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Football Division 3 as possible search term. Giant Snowman 12:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no indication the team has ever taken part in the national stage of any competition, so fails WP:FOOTYN. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage for any other activity. Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vizzio[edit]

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

On notability grounds. There is a lot of unsupported hyperbole but it does not look that he meets WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has 4 "references". One is a dead link. Two are YouTube videos which are not authoritative. One is a non-authoritative web article with superficial references to the subject. Fails WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the same as user Rpclod so he fails WP:GNG. There is no support for any of the claims of 11 world championships. If these titles can be independently and reliably documented, he would meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Holywell Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that it appeared to meet GNG and wa swell written. Quality of writing is irrelevant to notability, and there is no evidence of GNG in the article as every single reference points to the Club's own website and is therefore a primary source. The original concern remains that this is a team that competes someway below the "top professional league" standard required by WP:NSEASONS and there is no indication that this season in the club's history garnered anywhere near the level of significant, reliable, non-routine coverage required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod rationale, I don't see how this individual season is significant enough for a stand alone article, and the team does not play at a high enough level for the season to have inherent notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with media coverage of recent season and recent Welsh Cup semi-finals. Article needs to be improved, not deleted, adding sources from other than the team itself. Media coverage examples of various seasons are [4] [5] [6] [7] Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz. Quite a few major problems with your sourcing. Firstly, the daily post is a regional paper in Wales. Not even national level for a tiny country. You are well aware that that level of reporting doesn'tget close to ggnu. Almost all local papers report on low league teams. The third source is dire t from uefa and is a primary source promoting one of their own competitions. The final source is routine match reporting on the BBC and is extremely brief at that. Fenix down (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The final report is quite routine I admit, but otherwise the sources are quite acceptable. The Daily Post is one of only a half-dozen Welsh daily's. I'm not aware of any national Welsh papers. If you looking for a higher non-existent standard then there are WP:BIAS concerns. Nfitz (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are still reports from regional papers, such coverage is legion throughout British football. A higher standard would perhaps be a national paper? As wales is part of Britain, I would start by trying to find coverage at that level perhaps. Seems obvious to me. It also seems obvious that it is unhelpful to through accusations of bias around without elaborating. I presume as you did not that your comment was not serious. Fenix down (talk) 15:58, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Holywell Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that it appeared to meet GNG and wa swell written. Quality of writing is irrelevant to notability, and there is no evidence of GNG in the article as every single reference points to the Club's own website and is therefore a primary source. The original concern remains that this is a team that competes someway below the "top professional league" standard required by WP:NSEASONS and there is no indication that this season in the club's history garnered anywhere near the level of significant, reliable, non-routine coverage required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this individual season is significant enough for a stand alone article, and the team does not play at a high enough level for the season to have inherent notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media coverage of recent season and recent Welsh Cup semi-finals. Article needs to be improved, not deleted, adding sources from other than the team itself. Media coverage examples of various seasons are [8] [9] [10] [11] Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please see the other two Holywell town season articles for evidence of Nfitz providing exactly the same sources in each discussion. Whilst at best they can perhaps apply to one afd they cannot apply to all as each article refers to a different season. These links provided are relevant only to this AfD discussion and have nothing to do with the 2011-12 season. Fenix down (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume that if one recent season from this team is notable, then they are notable. Nfitz (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it did not recieve the required level of reliable coverage demanded by GNG, just because one season gets a given degree of coverage does not green light all previous and future seasons. None of the sources you have provided in this discussion have anything whatsoever to do with the season discussed. Your assumtion here is a personal opinion that to my knowledge has no support in terms of consensus at all. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Fenix that each season is its own article and must be dealt with as such. As far as this one, I do not see it as being viable and it severely lacks WP:Notability Canyouhearmenow 11:10, 30 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 02:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Holywell Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that it appeared to meet GNG and wa swell written. Quality of writing is irrelevant to notability, and there is no evidence of GNG in the article as every single reference points to the Club's own website and is therefore a primary source. The original concern remains that this is a team that competes someway below the "top professional league" standard required by WP:NSEASONS and there is no indication that this season in the club's history garnered anywhere near the level of significant, reliable, non-routine coverage required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG/WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this individual season is significant enough for a stand alone article, and the team does not play at a high enough level for the season to have inherent notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media coverage of recent season and recent Welsh Cup semi-finals. Article needs to be improved, not deleted, adding sources from other than the team itself. Media coverage examples of various seasons are [12] [13] [14] [15] Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcing is extremely disingenuous. You have provided the same sources exactly for three separate discussions, and all those provided here relate to this AfD discussion. Please explain how they are relevant to all three discussions. Fenix down (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would assume if one season is notable, then all recent seasons are notable, given the league, etc., hasn't changed. I don't see the need to be rude here. Nfitz (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would not if the season did not recieve the level of reliable coverage required to pass GNG. You are well aware of this. Fenix down (talk) 15:53, 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 redirect (all of the proposed articles) to South Dakota-class battleship (1920). (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USS South Dakota (BB-49) and other individual South Dakota-class battleship articles[edit]

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

While there is a good article about 1920s South Dakota-class battleships, six of which were laid down but all cancelled prior to launching, the articles about individual ships offer very little (if any) additional information because all ships of the class were cancelled before launching. Apart from slight differences in dates, photographs and minor trivia (e.g. here), they have practically identical content. It is also extremely unlikely that these articles would ever be expanded from their current state. Thus, any information deemed worth keeping could be included in the main class article and the individual ship articles should be deleted.) Tupsumato (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above reason:

All the articles appear to be recreations of articles that were redirected to the main article. They don't seem to have enough unique content over and above the class article so merge back to the class article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect - longstanding practice for unfinished warships is to redirect them to the class article, barring a few notable exceptions, Japanese battleship Tosa being one example. It's worth pointing out that these articles had been redirected for years until they were recreated the other day. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely missed that. I just checked that the articles had existed for year, but failed to notice that it wasn't until yesterday that the redirects were expanded into "real" articles. For this reason, I also failed to notify the user responsible for that. Thus, I propose reverting the articles back to redirects. Regardless, I guess it's ok to have this discussion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main article on the ship class. These are stubs with no realistic hope of expansion and most of the information is already to be found in the main article. As such they are unnecessary content forks. What little is not duplicated can be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Rote creation of placeholders which seems to have been divorced from any ideal of benefiting readers. bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per pretty clear previous consensus. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen plenty of pages of late that has had the same amount of info as the ones I edited and they get to say so why not these? I'm not sure why these have to be deleted since they were already existing pages just set on a redirect?85 GT Kid (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 85 GT Kid. Thanks for your contributions to the project! The reason these articles are likely going to be deleted is explained in the comments above and the various links to guidelines. Whether or not there are other articles that also fail to meet those guidelines is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please don't take it personally when articles are edited, redirected, merged or deleted. It's all part of the process of trying to build an online encyclopedia. BTW if you haven't gotten around there yet, there is a Wiki project for editors with an interest in ships and all things maritime. See WP:SHIPS. Feel free to take a look and join if you want to help out on this topic. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 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 23:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Razali[edit]

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

Amateur league footballer who fails notability as per WP:FOOTYN and GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. LRD NO (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. LRD NO (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG & NFOOTY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has yet to play professionally, or receive coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GNG, discussion appeared to turn based on presentation of sources midway. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliano Tade[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG & NFOOTY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable due to his appearances in the OFC Champions League and FIFA Club World Cup. I invite GiantSnowman, Fenix down and Sir Sputnik to reconsider their positions based on this argument. Regards IJA (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - USer:IJA should note that WP:GNG neither requires international caps or play in a fully professional league, even for footballers. He clearly meets WP:GNG as noted below. Nfitz (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG with coverage, including being the top scorer in last year's Champions League. [16] [17]. He was also the top scorer in the 2013–14 ASB Premiership [18] [19]. The previous season he won the Jack Batty Memorial Cup [20]. He's also played in the FIFA Club World Cup [21]. In addition to this, he's been the subject of feature articles and interviews, such as [22] [23] and [24] Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet the GNG (I added a detailed article from El Grafico, and there are several others available), and although he is a semi-pro player, Tade has had a distinguished career (appearing in 3 FIFA Club World Cup tournaments). Jogurney (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the additional sources found mean that available sources are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Larsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and GNG criteria. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perennial candidacy does not make a person notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally sourced BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for political office, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Arguably made sense by the standards of 2005, when it was created — but consensus has changed around such things, and it fails our current standards. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Failed politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The fact that this guy seems to have performed best with less than 3% of the vote in a congressional district tells you he is always an extremely minor candidate. I am actually not convinced the personal choice party is even notable enough for an article. That article has 2 sources, one of which is a publication of the party, so only one outside source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now nominated the Personal Choice Party article for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 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 23:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GJ Reynolds[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of dubious notability Gamaliel (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable "multi level marketer", a profession whose practitioners benefit from a poorly-referenced Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable bloke. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I poked around for sources a couple of times since I first found this article. There are a large number of press releases and routine event listings which made searching more difficult. One press release announced that he had recently discussed his Wikipedia page on his radio show [25] (wow), but I did not find anything usable. As for his radio show, its website lists a large number of affiliates, mostly small Christian stations and college stations, but it's a one-way reference. I didn't find any examples of affiliate station websites that mention his show. It looks to me like just an early morning filler program for small stations (at best). Regardless, no indication of notability. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing involved passes notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Tay[edit]

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

Seriously problematic biography. Fancruft, listcruft, entirely sourced from source lacking in independence from the subject. It's an utter mess that needs a complete rewrite at best. Delete this and start from scratch. Ohc ^¡digame! 03:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 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, czar ♔ 06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but one reference is to MediaCorp Studios. Methinks this written by a publicist.--Rpclod (talk) 14:00, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:59, 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. Michig (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtam4 (hacker)[edit]

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

Subject notability not demonstrated, all sources from single non-reliable organization. Sounds like a fan or an autobio. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 04:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, change request to Speedy delete. Notability is not asserted or sourced, and you get the feeling that this is a complete hoax when you look at the source. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 04:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with speedy delete.--Rpclod (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced negative BLP. Unverifiable. References are from a user-generated list site. Search for reliable sources only gets open wikis. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable "hacker" ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hacker. Frmorrison (talk) 21:21, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WZMT - Minecraft Radio[edit]

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

Article fails the general notability guideline and WP:WEB and ultimately should not have an article. However, it does not qualify for an A7 as it makes a claim of significance and my PROD was contested. There appears to be no sources other than the social media and iTunes links, which are primary sources and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Additionally, when researching for the sources, there does not seem to be sufficient secondary sources to garner notability for the topic at hand. Tutelary (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tutelary says it all – not enough coverage in RS to show notability. BethNaught (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria A7 and G11. VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Found no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral Made some improvements to the article, none of which address notability. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral Added a source that sites the history section. Zachster1996 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, just links to social sites, mobile application stores and personal website. Non notable web content per WP:WEBCRIT. ///EuroCarGT 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are not WP:RS per above comment from User:EuroCarGT. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources about the station. It also bears mention that if you compare the creator's username to the name of the person who launched the station, there's a probable conflict of interest here — which, as always, isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself if good sources exist to salvage the article with, but is an additional reason why the article can't be kept if such sources aren't locatable. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Shoe Company[edit]

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

While it's impressive that it's lasted this long, I see very little notice of it,[26][27] so I think it fails WP:CORP. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is reasonable to believe there is plenty of coverage of this company in its history, including off-line sources. The article states it is a company that has existed since 1891. (And apparently it was started in 1891 to provide rugged outdoor boots for Alaskan gold-rushers, per nominator's link to a Kent reporter article). It's "Western Chief" brand, one of its six brands, is quite a major brand. There are reviews of its Western Chief products in major newspapers. There's a 110-year-old Washington Shoe Building in the Pioneer Square area of Seattle which was subject of some controversy in 2000 (see "In Seattle, a Cobbler's Legacy Is Being Repaired", by King, Harriet New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 13 Aug 2000: 11.7. Photo of the building was included with the NYT article, including: "Mr. Israel was criticized for decades for letting his buildings decay. Ironically, Samis this summer received bad press when it refused to renew leases in the 110-year-old, six-story Washington Shoe Building at Occidental and South Jackson so that it could start rehabbing the building into apartments or offices. / Street-level tenants -- an antiques store, a picture-frame boutique, an art gallery and a kite shop -- reluctantly moved out. And so did artists who had been living illegally in studios on the five upper floors that were not in compliance with building codes."

Example hits on "Western Chief" and ("boot" or "shoe") in a major newspapers literature search for just recent times:

- "Catalog Critic: Puddle Protection" by Charles Passy. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 04 Feb 2000: W4.
- "Stormy weather? Take it in stride with spot-on rain boots" by Donahue, Wendy. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 06 Apr 2014: 23.
- "50 UNDER $50 Put the light in someone's eyes with gifts that won't lighten your wallet too much" Anonymous. New York Daily News [New York, N.Y] 11 Dec 2008: 28.

I expect that searches of historical newspapers would provide more, and that as a major company there will be plenty in Seattle histories. I'll stop with this much found by me, for now. --do ncr am 20:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nom which contains links to sources which demonstrate the notability of the topic. Andrew (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. "Very little notice" is not enough for the notability of a corp. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their are several topics to do with them that have some notability, but not sure they have any themselves. Did just track this down, re: a seemingly notable court case they were involved in. SeattlePI, 2. Their old building itself is moderately notable, Zynga now has its engineering center there per GeekWire plus its age and historic stats. All I can find on the actual company is an article noting they have a contract with Warner Brothers to release licensed boots and the already linked article from the Kent Reporter. But I suspect no matter how much googling I do, without access to an archive of historic paper I'm unlikely to find anything. Also, their own website is not working for me at all. JTdale ^Talk 15:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I added a section on the court case to the article, and Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc. now redirects to that. I added other info to the article, may add about the significant building as another section, too. I continue to believe that there is extensive coverage, in total, over 120 years, mostly not online, about this company, in addition to the building and courtcase topics (each of which could merit an article) so it is best to simply Keep the article, covering them all. --do ncr am 21:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject seems to meet at least the minimum requirements for an article. Andrew³²⁷ 07:29, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:22, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 1916 book, History of Seattle from the Earliest Settlement to the Present Time, Volume 2 says " SHOE FACTORY The Washington Shoe Manufacturing Company was incorporated January 24, 1891, with L. B. Allain, president; T. J. Thorsen, vice president and general manager, and G. M. Barber, secretary. This company opened Seattle's first real shoe factory at 807-09 Western Avenue, where it had installed modern machinery. By devoting its energies toward the making of high grade heavy boots and shoes, designed especially to meet the requirements of the outdoor workers of Western Washington, it soon built up a good business. Other grades of shoes were added and within five years the company had found it necessary to seek larger quarters at Second Avenue South and Jackson Street. The company now occupies a large factory building in the south end of the city and its product is sold all over the northwestern states." which is significant coverage of the company. 98 years later, the company is still in business. That's notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 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. Michig (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Allard-Gomez[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. All i could find is WP mirrors and one line mentions. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage and not just say "inherent notability". LibStar (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR--180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:16, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is inherently notable because they are part of the diplomatic history between two sovereign nations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my !vote, since apparently WP:DIPLOMAT was removed with what looks like minimal consensus (!) I don't remember seeing an RFC about it, but if the threshold for high-level diplomats is now GNG then I'd rather not have a say in this AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's very much overdue for resolution and wish I knew whose ass to light a fire under to get it done, trust me. But even when it was an active guideline, it still didn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on all diplomats regardless of the quality of sourcing that was actually present. Bearcat (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, ambassadors are not inherently notable, in fact several articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per generally accepted outcomes, a diplomat at this level is notable if they are actually the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to get them past WP:GNG — but is not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL.--Rpclod (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL is not the standard that a diplomat has to meet — that guideline's exclusion of diplomats means that it's not the test by which the notability of a diplomat is measured, and not that diplomats are never considered notable. Rather, until the dispute over the separate notability guideline for diplomats is resolved, a diplomat has to pass WP:GNG, not NPOL. She still doesn't meet that one either in the article's current form — but NPOL is not applicable to diplomats one way or the other, so failing to meet NPOL has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable source coverage. No prejudice against recreation if someone can write and source a proper version of an article about her, but diplomats are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassador of a far away country in a small capital, nothing of importance to our readers. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Given that she is currently active in her post it's reasonable to assume that most sources would be on-line, yet I'm unable to find anything of substance. Pburka (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the Streets Vol.1[edit]

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

I was close to nominate this article for speedy deletion under WP:A9, but then I noticed that it does have some assertion of significance. I still think that it should be deleted because it lacks Notability. The article claims that the album debuted on #6 on the "independent charts", but does not explain what charts, nor does it cite any source. By the way, it seams that the article is written by the artist himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:A9 would qualify. Non-notable artist. Independently released from a non-notable company. Only thing I could find about "independent charts" is his Facebook post where he give this as a link. Nothing out there in reference land except to social media and the usual music promotion sites. Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found - nothing on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 04:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitanshu Yashaschandra[edit]

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

The article's references are PR pieces, directory entries and other fluffy and cuddly things, but there is no significant coverage, which is independent of the subject, and is in WP:RS. While the draft was at WP:AFC the sole editor and reviewer was the author. This has not led to a well constructed and well referenced article about a notable person. Fails WP:PROF, fails WP:AUTHOR. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Timtrent. Sitanshu Yashaschandra is notable person in Gujarati literature but there are not many English language sources covering him. I had to use web sources as I cant access google book on my mobile (I edit from mobile phone mostly). If you have problem with notability, he is recipient of Padma Shri 2006, award given by Government of India for notable contributions in related field.(have news source in article) and Sahitya Akademi Award which is the highest literature award(ref of government website). Search in Find Sources: books above. It may confirm that he is notable person. Is it Ok? -Nizil (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No. The burden of proof is on you. I am sure, if he is notable, you will be able to prove it. English language sources are desirable bit not mandatory. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here are some sources: 1. Govt if India website archive citing him 2006 Padma Shri awardee 2. One India News citing 2006 Padma award 3. DNA News citing he was special guest at convocation of CEPT University, writes 'noted poet, playwright, translator and academician' 4.Times of India news 5. Press Info. Bureau-Govt of India about Padma award ceremony -Nizil (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put them in the article. Putting them here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but they are citing same information for article. I have already inserted citation for Padma Shri award and does not needed many more citations. Please search and add citations from Google Books, as I cant access them. They too have refs. -Nizil (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more Google book refs too. -Nizil (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recipient of Padma Shri- a prestigious award conferred by the Government of India.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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, czar ♔ 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that Nizil saved this article by demonstrating substantial coverage. As such, the subject meets WP:SCHOLAR among other criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 22:14, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:55, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rin Nakai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted in a previous AfD, recreated, redeleted under G4, then brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist it at AfD for a clean discussion. My listing here is thus an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete She has no top tier MMA fights so she doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Being highly ranked in judo in middle or high school does not meet the notability standards at WP:MANOTE, nor does her grappling record. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Who you fight is actually immaterial - where you fight them is. No top tier fights. Does not meet WP:MMANOT.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The vast majority of the references in this article are from one website, MMARising. In order to retain this article, one would need to add references from other reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article creator, I abide by the Wikipedia rules and will accept whatever consensus is reached here. I want to comment, however, about why there are more citations from MMARising than other sources. If there is a skew towards that website is because it's a reliable source in English and the English Wikipedia favors sources in this language over others when they are available. The majority of sources that give her in-depth coverage before her UFC signing are in Japanese, and, therefore, are mostly not included within the article.
On the notability of the subject, I will offer no voted opinion because, being the creator, I have a subjective perception, and I don't plan to add more sources or edit the article more than what I already did in the past to improve it. I was well aware that she may or may not meet the WP:MMANOT criteria depending on how the MMA promotion Valkyrie (where she became champion at the time the article was created) was cataloged (which wasn't or was top-tier for women's MMA, as it was one of only two WMMA promotions before it disappeared). With only English-language sources, I believe she meets the basic criteria of people, but not the basic criteria for athletes, unless one looks deeper into printed and TV media in Japan, which is not easily available even with the Internet. In any case, I see no problem if the article is deleted since there is a MMA wiki where the article can be moved without problems and if she ever meets the current criteria the article can easily be restored. Jfgslo (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that she has signed with the UFC although not fought yet. I could suggest you userfy the article and wait until she has had a couple of fights. If someone has a winning record in a top tier organization the article tends to be kept on the assumption that the chance of meeting WP:MMANOT will be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jfgslo (talk · contribs), would you provide a list of two to five Japanese reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Rin Nakai? For each, please provide the link (if the source is online), the publication's name, the translation of the source's name, and how much coverage the source devotes to Rin Nakai. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the reviewing admin to relist this discussion for another week to give Jfgslo time to provide links to sources that may establish notability. To avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias, Japanese-language sources should be considered to determine if the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline before concluding whether the article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and coverage is routine sports reporting--results or upcoming fight announcements.Mdtemp (talk) 19:11, 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 no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Clousing[edit]

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

Is his really notable? IMO not notable, sounds like any of the servicemen who go AWOL Gbawden (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect your opinion whether he is notable or not is irrelevant. Is there a policy that this article does not meet? This article isn't sourced the best but that can be fixed easily. It's not a common thing for a soldier to go AWOL because he opposes to the war. I can find plenty of sources and books just by searching Google. NBC, SeattlePI, HuffingtonPost, Desert News, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune. Press the Books button to find sources and you can also find many books about his story. Remember notability is not temporary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the existing Iraq Veterans Against the War article (which needs work). I question whether he's notable on his own. After looking at the books results, he's mentioned in some books (mainly because he gave interviews), but they aren't about him in particular; he's one of many being talked to and/or quoted. Intothat darkness 19:53, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Intothatdarkness and WP:BLP1E. Jinkinson talk to me 17: 21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Closer, please pay attention to WP:VOTE. The arguments for deletion are thin to nonexistent (nomination framed as a question?). The article is sourced much more in depth and reliability (book interviews) than RS requires. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:MILNG.--Rpclod (talk) 22:00, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picoponics[edit]

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

Seems like this topic lacks notability, it's maybe even made-up. Google search returns very few hits [28] non of which contain significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to be distinct enough from Hydroponics. Gccwang (talk) 20:25, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no coverage. No evidence that this is even a widely used term. --Michig (talk) 14:36, 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. Michig (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Syed Abdullah Shah[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The linked sources do not support the claims of the article. There is no time context given by the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 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, czar ♔ 06:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not supported by any authoritative references.--Rpclod (talk) 22:24, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per others above. Fai zan 19:45, 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. Michig (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niykee heaton[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:MUSICBIO, unless this line from one of the few sources can be considered something: "is arguably becoming better known for her Instagram pictures than her music". Unable to easily find any WP:RS relating to her music career. Should it actually meet some success would not object to an article at that time. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be too soon for a standalone article on this person, as I can not find sufficient significant coverage to warrant an article per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The best I could find, along with The Source reference from the article, are these "artist to watch"/"on the rise" pieces that fall short, in my view. Gongshow talk 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO--Rpclod (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims to notability, and too soon for any. Fails WP:BAND.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT. Maybe is a WP:TOOSOON. In either case, Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:48, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melee (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. The only available sources seem to be books by the game's creator and trivial mentions at a few game-related blogs. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added one really good source, so I suspect there is more out there. BOZ (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that User:Brainy J added a couple of ref ideas to the article's talk page a couple months ago. I don't have access to either, but I would say this makes the topic WP:GNG-worthy. BOZ (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep More sources would be great, but we've at least one very good one and this game has been fairly important in the history of RPGs (he says of personal knowledge). Will change to keep if anyone can find an additional solid source (I can't find anything on the talk page?). I can't find anything on-line that's a RS, but that's not shocking given the age of the game. Hobit (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, see the box that says "The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:". BOZ (talk) 00:25, 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) 13:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: you can use this review from RPG.net as well. Searching around it appears this game is widely believed to have exerted a lot of influence on later RPG battle systems.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:18, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Although there's no !votes - Per other AFDs nommed (IE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur) it's obvious this is gong to be a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Hopsin[edit]

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

There is already an article titled "Hopsin discography". no need to have two articles with almost the same scope. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you fool. His discography shows his albums, mixtapes, and guest appearances. This is ALL of HIS songs. A songography, totally different thing. Someone thinks "Hey I wonder if there's a list of all Hopsin songs", Boom. Here it is. You guys don't even have a page for Gazing At the Moonlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckT187 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Civility is not optional here. Namecalling and personal insults will not be tolerated. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:50, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of high school cohorts in popular culture[edit]

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

I've tried to add some categories, but I see this as a not terribly accurate or notable list. The first two films, Grease and American Graffiti are indeed set in the years indicated: but in the latter film, Paul LeMat's main character is older, and isn't even in school - several of the main characters graduated from the same class, but that's as far as it goes. Dazed and Confused is split between a graduating class of 76 and freshmen entering the same year (so maybe this should be listed twice?) Nowhere in the too-lengthy plot outline for Romy and Michele's High School Reunion does it say that this is the class of 87: it's just that the film was released in 1997 and the main action takes place at a ten-year reunion. Apparently, the video for "It's All About the Benjamins (Rock Remix)" was dedicated to a class - so what? I could go on but I believe what we have here is both trivial and in some cases, inaccurate original research, and should be deleted as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we do have a category for class reunion films, Category:Class reunions in film, television and literature and I suppose someone could create one for prom films, too. I'm going to speedily rename this cat to "Class reunions in popular culture," and both reunion and prom films could make for perfectly valid lists. However, the deletion nominee is neither of those, it's a combination of the two, some others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Oh dear, that is not notable or an encyclopedia topic at all. Reywas92^Talk 22:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lego timeline[edit]

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

Seems redundant to History of Lego, which covers the company history, and List of Lego themes, which covers the all the product ranges and the dates they were launched and discontinued. McGeddon (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: timeline articles are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia even if they contain redundant information. See Timeline of chemistry which is a featured article and contains information already found in History of chemistry, their purpose is about presentation rather than containing new information. Also List of Lego themes is not redundant to Lego timeline, the former only focuses on Lego products whereas the later looks at things like Lego movies, company history, etc.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:29, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lego timeline lists and state important 'years' of major events of a family own company history. Not just product or theme timeline, but when the company started and what happen that made important decisions depending on the year. History of Lego page is just a 'VERY' general information. It does not list or state important details that lead to major events. Please understand there is a difference between Lego as the brand or product, and the history of the Lego company and The Lego Group. If the Lego timeline is deleted. The information of important events, themes, products and people within the company will be gone for good. I don't know what is wrong having a timeline listing major events/themes about the company and not just about the toy Lego. GoTLG (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Sombra del Pasado[edit]

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

This telenovela is not yet confirmed, have only been rumors. They have not even started their recordings. and references has only speak another telenovela Damián80 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Advertising as an upcoming event. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:33, 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, czar ♔ 06:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new user, Valeria1998, has added this to the talk page: "exigo que la eliminen por falta de pruebas perdon por no escribirlo en ingles". She "demands" us to "eliminate" it. (What, I don't know.) And apologises for not writing in English. I brought this here for courtesy. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:52, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet made, we can recreate if it gets enough notice after creation to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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 Keep. The majority of opinion here is that the subject has received sufficient coverage to be considered notable, and evidence has been presented to back this up. Michig (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina del Mar[edit]

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

fancruft, "references" self-published, previously deleted G8 Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found one good source (Huffington Post) and 3 marginal sources ([29], [30], [31]). Seems legit. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:17, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The article appears to be somewhat of an ad and the real notability is questionable. I made a few changes to the most objectionable issues, but much work is needed for this to be acceptable.--Rpclod (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of significant coverage of Katrina del Mar to be found. Articles about her in reliable sources such as Photograph magazine, Musee magazine, Papermag, Posture Mag, and HuffPo demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:34, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several in-depth sources, nontrivial, independent, reliable, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 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. Notability is not inherited. No prejudice toward creation of a focused article written from reliable sources. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Meetze[edit]

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

blatant selfpromo with loads of useless sources (Meetze unmentioned) or sources about mr. Meetzes companies, not about himself. The Banner talk 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This appears to be self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 22:31, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion, sources are about the opera company, not him. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It seems incongruous that the founder of a notable opera company should not be considered notable. The subject's objective achievements do not outweigh his deplorable tendency for promotional writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve. While there is a lot of self-promotional material that needs to be removed, he is still notable as the founder of a notable opera company. Another problem with the article, though, is that some of the sources might be fabricated-for example, I couldn't find the britannica article. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 13:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen G. Sturgis Playground[edit]

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

"Helen G. Sturgis Playground" has 5 results. Pretty hard to understand if there is any notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here are some clearer sources about this small Philadelphia park and rec center [32][33], but I can't find any suggestion that the building is architecturally notable or that the park has another particular notability that lifts it from the run of the mill. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability, Plus do we really need an article on a non notable playground?... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:06, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heilind Asia Pacific[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Organisation is not notable. AlanS (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 05:36, 20 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being #9 among the largest electronics distributors in North America, really isn't much of a claim to notability. Company has no in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pernom and Bejnar. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:25, 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 merge to Hanna-Barbera Productions. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna–Barbera Classics Collection[edit]

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

This is an unsourced, unencyclopedic catalog of everything released in a DVD series/ Recommend redirect to Warner Home Video. SummerPhD (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, if keept its need to be re-written in similar manner to Walt Disney Treasuries series article, or Looney Tunes golden collection. If deleted its need to have it history removed and then redirected not to warner Archive only half of this series has been released through there, I think redirect to List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions. DoctorHver (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT.--Laun chba ller 06:57, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge- There is no doubt that this article meets WP:NOTABILITY, however, I find that it should not be afforded its own article, but rather to be merged into one of the other Hanna Barbera articles such as the one earlier suggested List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions. The information is valuable and helpful to readers and therefore should be looked at in such a way.--Canyouhearmenow 11:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Hoek Library[edit]

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

Zero indication of notability, most of the content is about the town, not the city. No independent references Jac16888 ^Talk 12:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero notability" means it should not have come here in the first place; but, as you brought it already I say Delete, per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and maybe revisit after a year has passed. It is a first article created by a new editor, and wp:BITE applies. Per discussion at the creating editor's Talk page, it was then being created as part of a wikimedia event, the Western Cape Libraries edit-a-thon. The article seems perfectly factual. There are many articles about individual libraries. It can be asserted that "wikipedia-notability" of this particular library is not yet established in the article. So it would be nice if the editor could try to find other coverage of the topic in newspaper or other sources separate from the library's own publications, to add to the article. Is the building historical or distinctive in any way? Anyhow, keep for now. --do ncr am 01:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a small thing that could be added: The library has a monthly "literary tea", e.g. where long-time journalist first-time author Claire Robertson discusses her novel "The Spiral house" (about the tea); the book was favorably reviewed in the Cape Times (copy of review here). So I am sure by the way that there will be multiple mentions of the library in newspapers, at least in calendars for hosting of events like this.

Also, I tried a Google search and found some articles (one involving "Cakes"?) there, but the link from Google goes to the Cape Times website where it wants me to create a one-week trial account. Maybe at this link or maybe that is a temporary link. Someone else could/should search the Cape Times for articles having significant coverage of the library. Given that the new editor probably did not try this, and given that there quite likely is coverage there, I say Keep unless or until someone with access checks and says that the library is not notable. --do ncr am 01:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For much the same reasons as mentioned by Doncram. Also this article falls within WP:LOCAL and although there is not unanimity on this issue I feel it does give weight to the argument for keeping it.--Discott (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LOCAL subject to removal of off-topic forking. Fish Hoek is a separate article.Helen Online 11:38, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Myers[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Myers is mentioned in passing in some WP:SECONDARY sources but has no in-depth coverage. The primary sources which are used in the article do not help towards notability. (I thought I found a good source in New Jersey's website but that Myers is a black track coach, not the white game designer under discussion.) Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 3 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) 19:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I've also tagged a portion of the article as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:31, 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, czar ♔ 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article contains merely conclusory statements and provides nothing that suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 22:21, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic does not have have any hits in a video game reliable sources search. Found some stuff for SIM Couch, but I'm not sure that's the same thing (and at any rate, it isn't proving notability for his individual biography). czar ♔ 03:55, 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 14:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sharmila Banu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Violates WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just about the killing. It also deals with the continuing aftermath of the killing, including a protest and a court case. Several national newspapers in India have covered the protests and court case. Public response to the police coverup of the killing is likely to raise the profile of the continuing issue of police corruption in India.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This event does not appear to meet WP:GNG.--Rpclod (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above; Does not appear to be notable and is written much like a news article. Staglit (talk) 13:56, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. While the victim may fail notability, the killing is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have put WP:BIO1E. Even without it, I still think this fails the others mentioned above. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while poorly written, the story was international news. Whether the case will be appealed further is unknown. I'd file this under WP:TOOSOON, WP:Incubate, or WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. L. Ashliman[edit]

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

Fails GNG, could not find independent sources about the subject, neither does this article state notability. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 07:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 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, czar ♔ 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SCHOLAR.--Rpclod (talk) 22:16, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" for bilateral purposes[edit]

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

This exact topic is already covered in the "Macedonia naming dispute" article. I am not using speedy delete wp:a10 because that is only for "recently" created articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jan CZ (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context. It is not at all clear what this list is a list of. A while ago I asked for clarification on the original contributor's talk page but none was forthcoming: Noyster (talk), 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The context is clear to me. It is a list of those countries that use the phrase "Republic of Macedonia" for official international relations, as opposed to those that use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The issue is not the context, but the fact that exactly the same list can be found in the article "Macedonia naming dispute". Vanjagenije (talk) 11:57, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List that duplicates another article for no compelling reason. The context is clear enough, but the fact that we already have the information elsewhere is more definitive. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information is better covered in Macedonia naming dispute, where one can also find a list of countries which use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in contrast to this list of countries which use "Republic of Macedonia". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicative articles should be redirected in most cases, but when they have unusual/implausible titles such as this one, they won't be useful redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 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 Nom Withdrawn. (Despite being involved I see no issue with closing a withdrawn afd), (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ace and the Ragers[edit]

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

Does not comply with notability for musical groups. Only self website and social website sources are not enough for general notability guidelines. (Note: My first trial of proposing an AfD. I hope I did not make any technical or evaluation mistake. My PROD's generally work.) Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a lot found online, but there's a brief bio and review from Allmusic ([34], [35]) and a review from CMJ New Music Report. Also a CMJ chart placing ([36]). Given that the band started in 1993 there may be more coverage in print sources than can be found online. --Michig (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:30, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what you're missing, but there seems to be plenty of mentions of the band's name on google. Yes, not a lot of prose, but mp3, posters, charts, albums for sale. They are not the non entity portrayed above. Trackinfo (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added to the article in the time since this was nominated. There does not appear to be a wealth of coverage, but reviews in Allmusic and CMJ are just enough to get over the hump. Gongshow talk 03:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The added sources make this meet minimum notability. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 20 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Hobbes Goodyear (Thanks Hobbes Goodyear). –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination happily over the development of the article and the opinions of the Wikipedian colleagues. Thanks to all and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:27, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gilman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. While this article isn't as badly sourced as some of the others I've listed, with four legitimate footnotes and one bad one it's still not sourced enough to actually put him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the sources are local.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pittsburgh does not pass the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Motznik[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what little coverage there is, is not significant, fails WP:GNG, also fails WP:Politician as purely local city councilor. Coverage like "Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and City Councilman Jim Motznik today introduced legislation that will eliminate roadblocks that prevent active-duty military personnel from being hired or promoted within the City." Pittsburgh city news release 23/09/2008. --Bejnar (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Members of Pittsburgh city council do not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 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 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Shields[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. Veers into inappropriate résumé format in the "boards and appointments" section, and with only four footnotes it is not sufficiently reliably sourced to claim that he gets past WP:GNG despite failing POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what little coverage there is, is not significant, fails WP:GNG, also fails WP:Politician as purely local city councilor. --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 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. Michig (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Mychajliw[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a comptroller at the county level of government, with exclusively minor local issues for substance. While there is sourcing here, all of it is exclusively local media in his own county — and thus fails to demonstrate any substantive reason why he warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international scope and readership. Politicians at the county level of government, in fact, often are not deemed to meet WP:POLITICIAN for this reason. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, lots of coverage for only being in office less than two years, but all very local. He holds an elected position, but it is purely a local one (county). As a result, he does fail WP:Politician. Does he meet WP:GNG instead? I think not quite enough or in depth enough. Coverage of him as news anchor for channel WGRZ is sparse, but I did find this "Mychajliw Replacing O’Loughlin on Ch.2" about a later on talk show. --Bejnar (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local politican who has not generated the type of deep and widespread coveraged needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tethered By Letters[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Cited links prove little more than that the organization exists, but little more. No evidence of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google hits for it are basically sites that list writing contests listing their latest ones, no more in depth than that. No significant coverage found. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They verifiably exist, but have no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estakio Beltran[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced WP:BLP of a person "notable" only as a not-yet-elected candidate in a future election — which, as usual and ad nauseam, is not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN. Under normal circumstances, a person must actually win the election to qualify for an article on Wikipedia — to get an article in advance of winning office, a politician must (a) have preexisting notability for other things that would get them past a different notability guideline, or (b) explode into a sustained national or international news story on the order of Christine O'Donnell. Neither of which has been demonstrated here. So he'll qualify for an article if he wins the election in November, but is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even if he makes one of the top two slots in the August primary, is not even a case of WP:TOOSOON as the district is rated "Safe Republican" by Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call, "2014 Election Race Ratings". --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians. Most candidates are not notable, they need indepth, broad, significant coverage to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chargoon. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didgah[edit]

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

It is not written like an advertisement; it is an advertisement. Definitely fails at Notability. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to software developer Chargoon. This article is of unclear notability, and lacks independent references. I wouldn't know where to begin searching for RS refs on Iranian software, but the company appears notable enough to serve as a redirect target.Dialectric (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chargoon per WP:PRODUCT, although the article about company should probably be deleted as well. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Joi (singer). Note that while this has been closed as "merge and redirect", I have not redirected the article to Joi (singer), to enable merging (after which it's customary for a redirect to be performed). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joilicious Records[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable record label. I am unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Joi (singer). Here's a reliable source from Billboard. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Joi (singer). This label had a singular release, by Joi. No notability here outside the artist, but the information should appear at that page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Joi (singer) - Since there's not much of evidence of notability It would make more sense to merge than delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joi (singer) per Davey2010 et al. No notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 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.