Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 July	22 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nate 8[edit]

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

I'm not completely sure whether this article should be deleted, so I am taking the necessary precaution and appealing to the community. Nate 8, the article in question, seems to make no indication of notability as per Wikipedia's Notability policy. This page appears to also violate the CSD:G11 policy, but again I am unsure if this counts. Please let me know if my instincts are just playing tricks with me. Meşteşugarul (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:15, 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 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Noncent[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 general notability and the fact the he plays for Drancy Jeanne d'Arc who do not play in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 21 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) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY. No evidence he passes the GNG. Coycan (talk) 18:41, 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) 10:31, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Safarzaei[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Fail WP:NFOOTY as players have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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) 10:32, 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 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiak Show Band[edit]

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

high school vanity article. I'd say merge to the school, but there is already waaaay too much there on the band. fails WP:ORG John from Idegon (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 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, buff bills 7701 22:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any evidence of notability beyond a very small geographic area. There's lots of fun-craft in there including the details of non-notable competitions, non-notable individuals and non-notable awards. There's just no need for this level of un-sourced detail about a local school band in a global encyclopaedia. Would seem to fail all of our music ensemble criteria and WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a high school band, period, and fails WP:ORG going away. There's a great deal of material here, but Wikipedia is not a webhost, and I invite the enthusiastic creators to set up something on the school's website. Ravenswing 20:40, 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 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Michaelis[edit]

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

nn PR spam Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - case of WP:PROMOTION Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hogben[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 14:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is a foundational copyvio by paid editor Trident13. It's without footnotes, and appallingly badly written: "Born in Foord Road in Folkestone, Kent, Hogben's mother died ..." - why should we care where his mother was born? I don't think there's much doubt that the topic is notable. WP:TNT seems the best way forward, or else a rewrite from scratch at Talk:Michael Hogben/Temp, if anyone feels like it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The general interest articles do not qualify as "secondary sources" and do not themselves support "notability". Further the referenced articles are not integrated into the Wikipedia article but are just listed under references. Is this the work of a publicist?--Rpclod (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources provided in my !vote above are from independent, reliable secondary news sources. They certainly serve to establish notability for the subject. Please consider reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 21 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 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a well enough known TV personality with sufficient coverage in reliable sources to have an article. --Michig (talk) 09:01, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American sandwiches[edit]

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

Subset of List of sandwiches and Category:American sandwiches, the former of which already includes origin and can be sorted on that field. The only thing added by this forked list is the set of images taken from member articles, which isn't really the job of a standalone list. Ibadibam (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a new article that qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:American sandwiches. The article also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP (e.g. see the article's page views). At the very least, a merge to List of sandwiches would be in order, rather than deletion; List of sandwiches lacks many of the entries present in the List of American sandwiches article. As a secondary choice, a merge would be a satisfactory WP:ATD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pictures help make it notable and is a good way to find all the sandwich articles. This is a unique article, not a dup. Frmorrison (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that the pictures are appealing, but in what way does the presence of images establish notability? That's a new one on me. Ibadibam (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there are enough sandwiches for it to be a stand alone list. Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of sandwiches. This does not affect the category and as the nom says, the list can be sorted by origin if so required. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Generic top-level domain. NAC—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

.accountant[edit]

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

Spammy article by single-purpose account ToothSelector. Instead of establishing why this top-level domain is important or notable, it describes when and where potential customers can sign up. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:notability and WP:verifiability - I believe it is notable and recognized by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (see here and here). Instead of deleting the article, the content which violates Wikipedia policy can be removed. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources establish existence, not notability. The former is just a listing, the second a kind of press release. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see coverage in an article at Information Week and an article at The Register. However, these are really just trivial mentions, and they don't satisfy the GNG. When there's more coverage, like .com and .org, then we'll have an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the issue here is going to be the depth of coverage. I see lots of passing mentions and single-lines but nothing in the way of "significant coverage". Happy to reconsider if someone finds something I didn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Generic top-level domain (which needs to be updated accordingly) as an ATD. Insufficient coverage to establish notability as a stand-alone topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd have no objection to that either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lands of Hope[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The current sources are all primary. There is mention of a review in PC Gamer issue 158, which should be February 2007, but nothing about its contents, length, author, etc. I am unable to find any trace of it. Of course, sources need not appear online, but the article only notes that a review exists and does not use it as a source. Even so, a single unavailable source doesn't allow us to write an article, nor does it make a subject notable. All other sources I've found are primary (including press releases) or unreliable third-party such as forums. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 21 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) Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable third-party references or other indication of why this game is notable or significant. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one WP:VG/RS hit, and no other substantial coverage. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) enough to build a full article. No suitable merge targets. Recommending the same for its offshoot, Lands of Hope Redemption. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere near enough reliable sources to meet WP:N Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 10:20, 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. See also the AfD of Lands of Hope which closed delete j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lands Of Hope Redemption[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V: non-notable video game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. The single third-party source (Cliqist) is an unreliable PR piece. A search using the WikiProject Video games custom Google search for "Lands Of Hope Redemption" found 0 results. (Custom Google search results are currently on the spam blacklist so you'll have to search yourself.) Less restrictive Google searches only turned up the usual unreliable/press release type of sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Woodroar stated my opinion quite well. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Selective merge to home article, Lands of Hope. The original game was barely notable - the "new" one fails WP:GNG, but could at least be mentioned as part of original the panda ₯’ 09:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That home article is about to be deleted as well for the same reasons. But while that topic has one WP:VG/RS hit, this has none. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) enough to build a full article. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:04, 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 Speedy Deleted (G12) by Anthony Bradbury (Despite myself being "Involved" it makes no difference since the outcome's going to be the same.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 Awesome & Surefire Steps to Having a Flat Abs[edit]

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

Just teaching contents. Azunyan(TALK) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTHOWTO.TheLongTone (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 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 Speedily redirected. Notability is not acquired during a relationship. No prejudice against writing an article on him if he ever becomes notable. --John (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Luca Passi de Preposulo[edit]

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

CsD declined because of a mention in the NYT, but since this is entirely because he is dating Jessica Chastain. One non-Chastain ref, but that is about a business he is involved with, not him. Pure WP:NOTINHERITED TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jessica Chastain as a quick search for sources only seems to mention him in context with her. (and can we please not cite the Daily Mail - it brings John out in a rash.....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tips[edit]

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

I'm not an agent of the New World Order trying to uphold Food Imperialism but the sources in this article are very poor indeed. NewsWithViews? An Amazon product listing? We don't want to discriminate against people with a fringe point of view, but being the columnist of Whole Foods magazine doesn't entitle one to a stand alone article. We need serious, in depth coverage in reliable WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. I did find this trivial mention in The Hartford Courant, but that's not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. I suppose his name could be redirected to National Health Federation, where he is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What in the blue blazes is this garbage -? {{COI|date=July 2014}} So now you're either resorting to outright lies, or possibly you'd be totally out of touch with reality. Either way totally unprofessional my friend! Really below the belt and most unprofessional! {{POV|date=July 2014}} NO surprises thst you'd add this to it as well Dougweller. None at all. My good chap, just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed you've gone a extra step further to prove me wrong. I have to say I am saddened and I do feel some sympathy for you. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
KEEP - Notability is painfully obvious And this is just a mere snap shot at the man .......
~ Whole Foods Magazine - (Monthly Columnist) [6]
~ National Health Federation - (General counselor) [7]
~ National Health Federation - (President) [8]
~ California Law Review - (Managing Editor) [9]
~ NHF delegation (2014) attending the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) Forty-Sixth Session in Hong Kong [10]
~ Codex Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism ISBN 0979567009 - (Publication) At Amazon, At Good Reads, At Global Research, News With Views, The NFH Shop, Share Guide, National Health Federation, Naturodoc. More thank Amazon for sure ?? (Boss Reality (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please read WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS generally, Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Boss Reality doesn't seem to understand our policies and guidelines. For instance in this latest edit[11] he adds " March 2014 Tips along with Katherine A. Carroll were part of the NHF delegation that travelled to Hong Kong to attend the CCFA's Forty-Sixth Session. The goals for 2014 were to have a reduction of aluminuim and aspartame in foods. Their efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." The source for this is an article by Carroll. I can find no independent sources even mentioning that he was there, let alone that their efforts had any effect on the decisions -- this is totally self-publicity. As an aside, it also justifies the NPOV tag. It may be that Boss Reality has nothing to do with any of these people or organsations, but so far he has clearly shown himself to be a single purpose account whose edits are all promotional. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dougweller, totally incorrect my friend. First of all I doubt that Tips would lie or the NHF would lie about him attending the forum. And as far as single purpose accounts go .... Well most of my time so far has been dealing with what I see as some vandalism and what I also believe to be censorship. Sure I'd like to do other stuff and I will do soon. But at the moment I have had to try and save articles as well as look after the day to day running of my own life. Surely my dear friend you'd understand that. BTW: NPOV Tag should not be thrown around like that. Not good my friend and I believe somewhat untoward I must say. Perhaps you should contact the National Health Federation and see what they have to say. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea where you got the idea that my problem was the suggestion that Tips attended the event. My problem is having Wikipedia state in its own voice (or in fact even repeat self-published claims) that "heir efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." That's the sort of thing that justifies an NPOV tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of significant independent coverage. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per lack of reliable and independent secondary sources. I suggest Boss Reality read and familiarize himself with the pertinent areas of our notability requirements (particularly WP:NFRINGE) before creating other articles. Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable with little to no independent coverage. Boss Reality, may I recommend that you read and understand WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:OR? Many of your edits to article-space seems to run afoul of one or several of these policies and guidelines. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notable. I understand this is the 3rd time this article has been created. I suggest salting it and closing per snowball. VViking_TalkEdits 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to VViking, I have had a look around and I have no Evidence that the article has been deleted 2 times. Where did you read or hear that ? Actually I'm quite interested. Why would you want to salt an article? I'm beginning to think our fellow Wikipedia contributor Boss Reality may have a valid point on the censorship thing(Starman005 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Seems much more likely that this is just confusion - it's Boss Reality's 3rd article taken to AfD - all because BR doesn't understand or agree with our notability criteria - which also seems to be the case with you and JoeCreation. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to DougWeller, Old friend how are you doing?
Quote: You - Seems much more likely that this is just confusion - it's Boss Reality's 3rd article taken to AfD - all because BR doesn't understand or agree with our notability criteria - which also seems to be the case with you and JoeCreation. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come now friend. I think Joe Creation has picked up on something that I others should notice here. If what you say about VViking aka Viewmont Viking is true then it would be mighty reckless to salt and delete an article just because this would be the creaters 3rd time creating an article. And a different one too. No I believe that VViking aka Viewmont Viking is being either intentionally misleading or something else. Perhaps this needs to be explored. I mean when someone says as per below,
Quote: VViking aka Viewmont Viking - Delete, per non-notable. I understand this is the 3rd time this article has been created. I suggest salting it and closing per snowball. VVikingTalkEdits 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC) and with the revision Revision as of 01:59, 25 July 2014, I would be more likely to believe what my eyes tell me. It's not confusion when someone says "this article". It's illusion and deliberate! And someone could be forgiven or wondering if (Delete - Salt - Snowball close) means that the intentions are an indication of someone may not be on the level. So I now personally believe that if this is true then VViking aka Viewmont Viking may be a bit naughty to try and pull this off. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

User:Boss Reality first off if you are going to be commenting on my post and using my name specifically please ping me so I can respond quicker. I just happened to come back to this page to see if it was closed. Normally I wouldn't.

Second please assume good faith, I was mistaken and reread the original posting about the 3rd time. It is exactly like User:Dougweller said. I am sorry for the confusion. This still does not change my belief the article should be deleted as non-notable. VViking_TalkEdits 11:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , It seems quite odd that this article is nominated for deletion. People are missing something here. :) There's certainly enough notable information in multiple directions to satisfy many of the most important criteria. I fail to see how this is disputed when the evidence of notability is right here. I will say that the article needs improvment but that's a minor issue. (Joecreation (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry.... which WP:FRIND-quality sources are you referring to? jps (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no coverage in Reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And another one that easily gets my vote. Highly Notable, Notable for his contribution to the natural health movement and legal representation. And what about his profile and participation at the codex meetings? Massive profile. Numerous contribution in publications for food and also Law. Too much to be ignored! When reporting on the codex meetings, those challenging or questioning codex procedure are deliberately ignored by much of the mainstream media for certain reasons. Do I have to spell it out here? (Starman005 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Please read and understand the implications of WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:RELIABLE. Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... and that is in reality all you have so far. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FRINGEBLP that fails to show extensive reliable and independent sources. Another Codex Alimentarius quack. 93.96.203.155 (talk) 09:30, 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 keep. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability and there is no consensus that the article fails WP:ONEEVENT either. Davewild (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuba Jay[edit]

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

Very tragic story (one of 298) of a passenger on board the MH17 plane. But the news coverage about her is entirely surrounding her death. She seems to be a very minor actor in 'local' TV shows. I've searched for anything pre-July 2014 and can only find this, about her choice to give birth at home - there's nothing to suggest she is a well known personality apart from a brief mention she is an "actor and business owner". For obvious reasons each passenger on MH17 will have a moving story that will come out in the news this month, but should they really each be profiled on Wikipedia? This is clearly a WP:ONEEVENT case. My condolences go to Shuba's family. Sionk (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Death alone does not make one notable. WWGB (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MSN says that Shuba had starred in Social Networking as a protagonist instead of some minor actor. She is also "known for her role in television shows", which disproves User:Sionk's speculative theory that she was only a minor actress in these shows. USA Today describes her as a "popular actress" and local newspapers reported on the home birth of her daughter in 2012, which clearly demonstrates that she was a very well-known celebrity before the crash, contrary to the false and incorrect assertions of User:WWGB. Shuba satisfies WP:GNG as well as the first and second criteria of WP:ENT. -A1candidate (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous. If Social Networking was a notable play I'd take interest. And my great-grandfather was called 'popular' in his obituary, it just meant people liked him. But you're obviously entitled to your opinion. Sionk (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples to oranges: An obituary is a self-published notice written by people who are closely related. USA Today, on the other hand, is a very well-established, independent source. -A1candidate (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange definition of "obituary". I think that must be American English.Deb (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also object to the statement by WWGB, "Death alone does not make one notable". Death did not make her notable – it prompted the creation of the article. Not the same thing. It is actually possible to be notable according to GNG, and still not have an article on wikipedia. It just may not have been created yet. Judging from what A1candidate have found, it appears to me that is exactly the case here. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems to be pretty well-known in Malaysia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually she's not well known at all and the sources need a much more careful degree of examination. The TV shows listed are all obscure cable shows. The giveaway here, of course, is that none of the shows have their own wikipedia articles (and trust me, this is not a case of Western bias; the Malaysian TV industry is well covered by wikipedia). The other big giveaway is that no-one can find any sources from Malaysia (including the many English language newspapers in Malaysia such as the New Straits Times and the Star) that discuss her before her death. So the USA Today has it completely wrong. The reference to Malaysian media having covered her home birth is a total fallacy. The coverage of her home birth is here: [12]. As you can see, she is one of three ordinary women covered by the lifestyle article. There is only a very brief passing reference, by this reliable Malaysian media outlet (The Star), to her even being an actor. She simply was not well known at all and was covered here as an ordinary women giving her life experience. So what we are seeing here is a fairly egregious case of media outlets - particularly one western outlet - wrongly talking up her prominence after her death. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, please go to List of Malaysia-related topics and check out how comprehensive Wikipedia's coverage of the Malaysian film industry really is. We have a grand total of 21 actors and actresses, 7 films, and 4 directors representing a country with a population of 30 million people. I took a quick survey of the quality of the articles, and I doubt half of the 21 actors and actresses would survive AfD in their current condition. Take look at the following examples:

Kavita Sidhu - Stub article with no reliable reference

Aziz M. Osman - Stub article filled with red links

Erra Fazira - Stub article filled with red links

Jalaluddin Hassan - Stub article without a single reference

Hani Mohsin - 4 sentence page without a single reference

M. Nasir - Single sentence and a single reference

Rosyam Nor - Entire filmography filled with red links

Saiful Apek - Stub article without a single reference

Jamal Abdillah - 3 sentence stub but won a competition with unclear notability (red link)

These are the people who actually have articles rather than red links. As for Shuba Jaya, USA Today says she is a "popular actress", so if you claim otherwise, please provide a reliable reference instead of accusing the media of "wrongly talking up her prominence". In fact, I don't think she's any less notable than any of these stub actors and actresses who probably won't survive AfD if they're nominated for deletion. -A1candidate (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are well in excess of 100 Wikipedia articles about Malaysian actors/actresses. That list must be well out of date. Sionk (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that tell us about our coverage of the Malaysian film industry? It is, as you've just said, well out of date. I've just taken a closer look at the "Malaysian actresses" category, since you say there are more biographies listed there. I think we can agree that the quality of these articles is far lower than what we typically expect on Wikipedia and the biography of Erra Fazira is a good an example of what's wrong:

Starting 2001, Fazira begun to work with many different directors for her films including Ahmad Idham's Mr. Cinderella (2002); A. Razak Mohaideen's Cinta Kolestrol (2003) and others. In 2004, Fazira went on to star opposite her then former husband, Yusry bin Abdul Halim, in the 2004 Hingga Hujung Nyawa, one of the four films she starred in directed by Mohaideen. Through this film, Fazira once again was awarded the Malaysian Film Festival Award for Best Actress as for the portrayal of Nora Halim in the movie.

In 2002, Fazira acted in a telefilm and hosted the show, Fesyen Tempo.

Not only are there more red than blue links, the entire article is virtually unsourced except for a single promotional blog entry. Will Fazira's biography survive AfD if she's nominated for deletion? Probably not. Yet her article claims that she received critical acclaim and a Malaysia Film Festival award (but we will never know if this is true since there's not a single reliable reference)

Many of the other biographies are in an even worse state. Cindy Alisha is a single sentence stub and she's one of the most unnotable biographies I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Surprisingly, nobody has ever nominated her for deletion. -A1candidate (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting irrelevant. We don't keep articles on the basis they're better than another article. So stop twisting my words (I didn't say coverage of the Malaysian film industry was out-of-date), copypasting other Wikipedia articles, or other diversionary tactics. Sionk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough. She was mentioned in several major sources prior to her death. I don't see anybody nominating the Australian and Dutch victims' articles for deletion. Illegitimate Barrister 20:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? What major news sources wrote about her before her death? None (though mentions would not confer notability anyway). As for the Dutch and Australian victims, I don't see any new articles. One mentioned in MH17 is an elected Dutch Senator, another was President of the International AIDS Society, the other is an award winning author (both the later written many years ago).Sionk (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to USA Today, "Local newspapers reported on the home birth of her daughter Kaela two years ago" -A1candidate (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article post-dates her death, as you well know. Sionk (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article refers to local newspaper reports that pre-dates her death -A1candidate (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is a Tamil actress so Tamil sources should help. Also check Malay and Chinese sources WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found a Vietnamese source: http://www.nguoiduatin.vn/my-nhan-xau-so-tren-chuyen-bay-mh17-va-moi-tinh-o-viet-nam-a140641.html WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems notable enough to me with a significant number of worthy sources mentioning her specifically. I cant help but feel this deletion request is more of a case of unwitting systematic bias than anything else as there is a long list of Western actor articles on Wikipedia with a better case for getting deleted that never do. --Discott (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. At least that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument with a good motive. There are still very many articles about very notable Malaysian actors that need sourcing and developing. Sionk (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a variety of independent sources writing about her, so passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - independent sourcing. clear case of passing WP:GNG. Had this been a Western world actress then I doubt this would have been nominated. But that is just my guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd like to retract that. I'm fed up with being called a racist. Please read my nomination rationale. Sionk (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I normally do not respond to comments in AfD discussions, however, I cannot let BabbaO's unwarranted and discourteous attack pass without comment. This debate is headed for "no consensus" and I accept that as the will of the contributors. Let us not lose sight of the facts that Jay was a part-time actress [13] who had ONE identified reliable source to her name prior to her death.[14] Yes, editors are building a case for notability since her death, but the nominator made an honest decision to proceed to AfD based on the limited citations at hand. I have no doubt that he acted honourably and without prejudice. BabbaQ would do well to assume good faith, restrict his comments to the facts and not engage in personal attacks. For shame. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racist? where do I call you a racist? Do not label my comments with things I have never stated. I am frankly fed up with users who are so insecure that they can not handle other users opinions without name-calling. WWGB that goes for you as well, I know you are on the delete-side of this discussion but do not yourself engage in personal attacks. I simply stated my rationale for Keep and that users assume bad faith based on the Delete-Keep-sides are simply a shame. And "discourteous attack", WWGB please even you should know better than being that hostile at AfD discussion. Now move on. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging ..... WWGB (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep biting, it only proves my point .....--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate delete. This appears to be a case of WP:1E where the subject of the article had insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG pre-MH17. The 2014 NST article about birth failed to mention what the subject was notable for (as a former NST employee, or actor?). I tried looking up all three possible names on Factiva and I could not locate a single article (including in Malay or Tamil language). If anyone else is able to present more reliable, independent sources before MH17 I would be happy to reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one person wanted her name removed from Mh17 article because she didnt have article, now that she has an article its being deleted, he even put up a ^[notable?] tag next to her name when she didnt have an article not that it was wikilinked to appear red that he should have added that. Fact is she is a Malaysian actress and even if small time she is notable and needs to be listed in there, also why has Malay PM's step grandmother been removed from MH article, notable is notable as in prominent not necessarily having an article on wiki or press coverage, or articles only geared to western appeal? 175.110.222.144 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to Malaysiakini, Shuba was recognised by Prestige Magazine as one of Malaysia’s top 40 individuals under the age of 40. -A1candidate (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a variety of independent sources writing about outside of the context of the crash. 89.242.180.69 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per to WP:1E, It tells: On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles. This is not simply an airplane crash, but an event significantly affecting world politics. My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one will disagree the event was of world importance. However, Shuba and the other 297 people were unwitting victims in the wrong place at the wrong time, hardly 'participants'. Sionk (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was not just one of the passengers, but someone who was sufficiently notable prior to the crash. That's why we have so many publications about her right now. She is probably someone who was well known nationally, rather than internationally. Having poor coverage in English sources is typical in such cases, but it does not matter what was the language of sources (I saw a Vietnamise source above) per our notability criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough independent sources to suggest notability. IJA (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple references that show notability. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:08, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots Point War Dog Memorial[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable source that this exists. There are a lot of mirrors when you do a search. The link provided is dead and websites that mention the memorial link to this page - creating a dead end. If it exists, I believe it fails GNG as it stands is likely not notable Gbawden (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patriots Point, which definitely exists. Delete, see below. Also, I don't remember seeing this when I last went to Patriots Point. Jinkinson talk to me 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to make the same merge suggestion if the memorial existed, but I'm not sure it does. I found an archived version of the original reference which seems sincere if not a reliable source at http://archive.today/6KpL0 and pointers to that reference in a number of places but nothing else. Nothing at the Patriots Point website, no images anywhere. Contrast this with the South Carolina War Dog Memorial. Of course, I may have missed something beyond the original reference which is why I've labeled this as a comment. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks for reminding me that was in dispute. Anyway, I have used the Wayback Machine to "resurrect" the dead link mentioned by Gbawden and the only source in the article: [15] The dubiousness of this site and the fact that we have no way of knowing who wrote it doesn't seem to make it a RS, which is why I am striking my initial merge vote in favor of voting delete. (Also there aren't really any other sources except mirrors, as Gbawden noted.) Jinkinson talk to me 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails verification in a reliable source, and anyway lacks notability for failure to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panuganti shalem raju -madigas pride in andhrapradesh[edit]

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

Nominating as non notable. One of the few sources I can find mention that he lost the 2004 election. Fails GNG, most of the sources are wiki copies Gbawden (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is completely unsourced as written. I'm willing to concede that he might qualify for an article if a properly encyclopedic one, citing proper sources, could actually be created — but even Barack Obama wouldn't be entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Fai zan 19:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general failed candidates are not notable. Beyond that, as it stands everything here is a BLP violation, so unless some sources turn up we should delete under BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination even the WP:CSD was applicable. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:05, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha hooch tragedy (2012)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS IMO - orphaned article so nothing else in the encyclopedia is referencing it. No evidence of lasting notability. Gbawden (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 29 deaths, liquor mafias involved. I'm sure it would be a big story without notability discussions if it happened in the USA. Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The article is poorly written but better than nothing. Btw, similar incident occured in my country in 2012. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any incident causing 29 deaths is notable. If this was in Western Europe or North America there would be no question of keeping it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable tragedy.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:18, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyan Varma[edit]

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

Neither National Geographic nor BBC website says about a person named Kalyan Varma as an Earth Explorer or a freelancer, but this article says 'He freelances with the BBC Natural History and National Geographic Channel (India)' and he is a 'BBC Earth Explorer'. There are many references about this name in secondary sources like local newspapers and personal blogs of many people, which all say the same that he works as a freelancer for BBC and National Geographic and titles him as 'Earth Explorer': but this is not valid as none of the people/filmmakers/website of National Geographic or BBC says Kalyan Varma is a freelancer with BBC or he is an Earth Explorer. The references used by Wikipedia is not working. There is only one credit in the name Kalyan Varma which is in 'Secrets of Wild India' as an Additional Photographer, and another one in Mountains of the Monsoons. This article is made just to promote the person, supported by a pool of promotional newspaper articles and blogs which is not based on any proper study. (Converting PROD tag by anon to Afd) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRSNVNA, most sources are not reliable. It may be the case of WP:COI (only guess), the BBC link given under reference is dead and the one I found is about a user (see here) that anyone can create there. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 11:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRSNVNA. Fai zan 19:57, 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 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Gaethje[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights, fails WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Has no top tier fights and a second tier title does not show notability. He may become notable, but article was created WP:TOOSOON.Mdtemp (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone know if he meets the notability standard for wrestling he was a Division 1 All American. 74.103.250.78 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His best finish at the NCAA tournament was 7th (the top 8 are "All-Americans"). Not sufficient to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one an undefeated fighter who has beaten some notable fighters as well as is a ranked top Lightweight fighter who is Champion of a notable organization and is currently undefeated which shows the reason why he is becoming someone notable for the sport of MMA at the moment JMichael22 (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He definitely fails to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so he also doesn't meet WP:GNG. Like Mdtemp and Jmichael22 I believe he is a promising MMA fighter, but I agree with Mdtemp that he's not yet notable. I have no objection to putting this is someone's sandbox for recreation when/if he meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Tea Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is largely promotional. A CSD was previously declined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails notability requirements listed in WP:COMPANY. TheBlueCanoe 12:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy notability requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all relevant guidelines. A primary source and a hometown newspaper do not make for evidence of notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though the article is only mildly promotional, it still fails inclusion with notability. Fylbecatulous talk 12:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although it's mildly promotional that could be fixed, Anyway as there's not much evidence of notability - The best solution is delete for now. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and the above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure that it is a wonderful little business, but it is of local interest only. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 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 deleted by WP:BLPPROD. (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbër Prekazi[edit]

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

empty unsourced stub about a footballer who is likely to be non-notable; Kosovo League isn't listed at WP:FPL Postoronniy-13 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 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 hasn't made any appearances for a club in a fully professional league, nor has he any international caps. At this moment in time, he isn't deemed to be notable footballer. IJA (talk) 18:30, 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. I'm not redirecting, since there doesn't appear to be any mention of myofascial meridians (or of connective tissue planes) in the suggested target article. There is, however, nothing stopping anyone from introducing such a mention there (as long as it isn't copied without attribution from this article) and creating a redirect at this title. Deor (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myofascial meridians[edit]

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

Nomination from QuackGuru.

Comment Please note that this article was part of an edit war/content dispute prior to being being fully page protected for a month. The longer version with more context and evidence for notability can be found here. - Technophant (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets GNG. Has clinical significance as a proposed physical correlation for acupuncture meridians and as a treatment for shoulder pain. While the term "myofascial meridians" is not popular among researches, "connective tissue planes" is. The textbook, which is published by Elsevier Health Sciences (the most respected name in health information sciences), is very popular among physical therapists and massage therapists and its concepts are frequently used to enhance therapeutic techniques. - Technophant (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a PT I'm familiar with the personal opinions included as "pearls" (of crap) by the authors (with poor crap detectors) of textbooks, sometimes positing hypothetical ideas as if they were fact, and some PTs fall for them, as if they were firmly established scientific fact, and become fans of the guru author. This is far from a reliable source for medical knowledge. While much of it might be fine information and helpful in practice, such gems of speculation should not be swallowed whole. It's much better to use properly performed scientific reviews of the mainstream literature. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if you support it being kept, why did you nominate it for deletion? Why shouldn't this be closed as speedy keep? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, worked it out. You really should have waited for the nominator to complete the nomination before responding. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) as it is not notable as a stand alone article. See ref for support [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also discussed here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DJ, non notable nonsense. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine). The article is obviously not notable as an individual article. There is limited coverage is secondary sources for this fringe view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Technophant -A1candidate (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) because I cannot find any independent sources which which actually distinguish between the two kinds of meridians. jps (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable enough for an article. This fringe idea doesn't need to be advertised by Wikipedia, unless it gains sufficient notability, either as a recognized and noticed form of pseudoscientific piffle, or becomes a scientifically confirmed addition to our medical knowledge base. Either way, notability is currently insufficient. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine) as possible search term. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) - it's a minor detail within a fringe topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone invented a new way to cure medical problems, and they published a book, and they run a course. That's great, but there are no secondary sources independent of the subject that show notability, and Wikipedia should not be used for promotions, particularly for promotions based on techno-babble. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine) WegianWarrior (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to warrant a separate article, doesn't really belong in the Meridians article because of WP:FRINGE. Karzelek (talk) 10:54, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who-is-famous.com[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be meeting WP:WEBCRIT. 3 of the 4 sources used in the article are press-releases. 4th one, appears to be a primary and unreliable source.. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy article clearly fails WP:GNG--at the minute it is sourced by two press releases. Paid editor Klokus has contributed to a series of spammy articles and is being WP:DISRUPTive. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I note that several attempts have been made to get this into mainspace already, via the draft process. Draft:How to become famous, Draft:Who-is-famous.com, Draft:Who is famous, Draft:Who is famous ( website ). I am unsure a rule covers this precisely, but in the spirit of WP:IAR this to me would be grounds for speedily deleting this and warning the editor for wasting everyone's time attempting to get around the repeated rejections/bypass the draft process.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, lack significant coverage in reliable publications. --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD on Disney Channel[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. A block of programming doesn't need its own article. No independent notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have Disney XD (Europe) & different countries, Nothing to merge, and a useless redirect. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already a Disney XD article. I'm not sure we need an entire separate article to point out that some of XD programming is shown on disney channel. Surely we could just point that out on the Disney XD article. Bali88 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you kidding me?! This is two hours a week of one network's programming on another network! This is one sentence in the Disney Channel article (a sentence I've been maintaining against the crufters) that doesn't need further elaboration and nobody except Disneycrufters care about. No redirect either. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to stand on its own two feet. Cruft that can easily be explained in a single sentence either at Disney Channel, if even that is warranted (we are not TV Guide.) I don't understand the need to document every aspect of the channel like hoarders stashing empty tins of jack mackerel in the sofa as if at their funeral someone will think to mention this mundane aspect of their lives. "They were a filthy lot. And they ate canned jack mackerel twice. Rest in peace. Amen." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Worst problem I have is inability to verify any of the additions as no references are provided for any of the info. We shouldn't have article where the contents can't be verified. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Capitals (basketball)[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball team. Never played any games. Contested prod giving no reason for objection. LionMans Account (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable semi-pro basketball team that never played a game. Fails specific notability guideline applicable to organization (and teams) per WP:ORG, general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and COMMONSENSE. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. This team never existed. Rikster2 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of substance, fails WP:GNG and other guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trippy Turtle[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician which relies entirely on unreliable and primary sources (he's so poorly covered in reliable media sources that there's actually been an edit war over whether he's from Norway or New Jersey.) And for that matter, even setting aside the poor quality of the sourcing for a moment, the article as written doesn't even make a claim that would actually get him past WP:NMUSIC in the first place. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, no legitimate claim to notability.TheBlueCanoe 12:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim that would come anywhere near passing the notability requirements for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, et al., I agree no basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 03:58, 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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Abdul Ghaffar Naqshbandi[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 12:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google books search gives some results but I am not sure of the notability; a detailed search must be made by someone familiar to the topic and then use those reliably sources in the article, if there are any. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:50, 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, czar ♔ 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From looking at the article, there are several books that discuss the author listed therein. This article should be expanded rather than deleted. I hope that this comment is helpful. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail WP:GNG. The article should be expanded rather than deletion. Fai zan 19:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 World Music Festival[edit]

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

Article for a festival that never happened, Sources confirm that it was planned but also confirmed that it was cancelled before it ever happened. See WP:BALL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." - this one never took place Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A search revealed quite a bit of coverage about the cancellation. Though some of the hits are blogs, others appear to come from reliable sources. And even then, the sheer number of articles covering the event (albeit mainly for the cancellation) suggests some notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 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, czar ♔ 03:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is trivial. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 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 delete. Has been running for more than 14 days with no one advocating keeping. Deor (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Jedi Knights Series[edit]

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

Pulp sci-fi book series that fials to meet WP:NBOOKS. Can't find references from reviews or academic study. Article is completely unreferenced, stub.

I'm also nominating the books in the series as they're similary non-notable. Each article is unreferenced; those that aren't stubs have large in-universe plot descriptions:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find anything to suggest any of these are notable. I was thinking that each of the individual books could be merged into the "parent" series article but I'm not sure the series itself is notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real coverage of the individual books or of the series. They fail WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 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 02:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous political party[edit]

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

A 100% original research, created in these early days of wikipedia when everything was possible. Joke political parties do exist, but I don't see any scholarly researc of them. The references is the articles are just links to cases of individual parties, not to studies about them. THerefore the whole article is WP:SYNTH at best. -No.Altenmann >t 15:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominating statement, purely original research.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 00:42, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominated. No sources for the topic itself. Just examples. BayShrimp (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, those aren't really sources in the WP:RS or WP:V sense. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and the above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:55, 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 02:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa McGregor[edit]

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

I declined a CSD for this founder of a skincare company because there were a small amount of sources. However, there isn't enough to convince me that her, or the company, Whistler Naturals, meets the notability guidelines for people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreeing with nominator. I found a (possible) second reference, in-depth, but it was all praise, no critical examination, so there are no clear indications that this source was worthy. Looks like Wikipedia is being used here to sell skincare products.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 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 02:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything beyond what seems to be listed in the article and what is listed in the article doesn't seem like enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The independent coverage is not significant. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see how this subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:41, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aysha Naushad Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable female cricketer who has played in minor under-19 women's tournaments in Asia. The article erroneously claims that she has played Women's One Day Internationals, however the United Arab Emirates women's cricket team doesn't hold WODI status so this part is not correct. Fails WP:CRIN and by extension WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not so much on cricket or sports notability guidelines, but via the general notability guideline. That said, it's a borderline squeaker case; the GNG wants multiple in-depth independent sources, and if we interpret that as meaning two sources, she squeaks in with this article solely about her and [this article where she is prominently mentioned. Add that to the other sources, how she played in games, which are mostly mentions, if one considers them in total, then perhaps one could make a case for meeting the GNG, but of course it depends on interpretation. In her favor is that she plays internationally for the UAE. Her youth means there is a good chance of future articles about her. The article, still, should be short, with much of the extra stuff trimmed, like I would cut most of it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC) One other thing -- spelling variations -- sometimes its Naushadkhan (one word), sometimes two; sometimes Aisha, sometimes Aysha, and this can cause confusion with online searching because browsers care about every little letter; what I'm saying is that spelling snafus may have caused some sources in the past to be overlooked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 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 02:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tomwsulcer's analysis is spot on. It's a borderline squeaker case. I just lean the other way on that call. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tomwsulcer is completely right about this. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:52, 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 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Malpass[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician who might pass WP:NMUSIC if the article were properly sourced at all — however, as written the actual facts are all completely unsourced, with the only "references" present anywhere in the entire article being primary sources supporting personal quotes by individual people under the "accolades" section about how great he is to work with — which is not appropriate content for a Wikipedia article, violates WP:NPOV and edges the article dangerously close to being an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm willing to withdraw this if real sources start showing up, but it's not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only 5900 results including his own website and twitter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be nothing out there that isn't self-generated or from non-reliable sources. An impressive resume (although unsourced) but working on many musical projects does not confer notability unless there's some secondary coverage of it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Representational Action State Transfer[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. The article appears to be authored by the same person who wrote both cited references (apparently the same cited reference published in two separate locations). Admittedly, the author (Joanna Ng, Head of Research at IBM Canada Software Laboratories) is a significant force in Web development, but Google scholar notes no citations for Ng's paper. As time passes, this may catch on to be a notable concept, or it may die on the vine as so many other ideas have. Until we know for sure, we should wait to create an article about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—One paper is so new that it's not even in google scholar yet (as it just came out last month) and I verified the other shows no citations. Searching for "representational action state transfer" has that paper as the sole hit in google scholar, and a regular google search just turns of backscatter from that paper. Easy call due to lack of notability, and a particularly thoughtful nomination. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not my field, but it looks as though, as far as the literature goes, the ideas has not gone anywhere. No cites to the single paper on Google Scholar. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search turned up only the two primary sources quoted in the article. Without independent in-depth reliable sources (secondary or tertiary), the topic fails notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It may be WP:TOOSOON, as an article on this will have to wait for secondary sources to appear assessing the importance and impact of this variant of the Representational state transfer paradigm. --Mark viking (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Carrasco Arteaga[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. The cited article appears to be the only coverage available for this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be well known in his country: [18] (La República, Ecuador), [19] (Hoy), [20] (Expresiones), [21] (El Comercio), [22] (El Tiempo) etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Thank you Vejvančický for being more successful in your search than I was. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arkansas gubernatorial election, 2014#Third parties. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gilbert[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN rather miserably. If he is elected, then he can have an article. Until then, or until he starts to get significant secondary coverage, it's simply too soon to have an article on him. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, WP:POLITICIAN. At best (and that's a stretch) it's WP:TOOSOON. I am surprised this article was not nominated for Speedy Delete A7.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the claims here satisfy WP:POLITICIAN: a person doesn't get a Wikipedia article for being a county sheriff, they don't get a Wikipedia article for being the mayor of a small town with a population in the hundreds, and they don't get a Wikipedia article for being a minor party candidate in an election that they haven't won yet. Furthermore, the article's only source is his own website, a primary source that cannot confer notability. No prejudice against recreation if he should win the election in November, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Arkansas gubernatorial election, 2014#Third parties, where he is already appropriately mentioned. Discrete search term not otherwise in use, for someone on whom we have mention in a notable topic. Restore if he's elected or becomes otherwise notable, displace once needed for someone else. Dru of Id (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Gilbert wins the race he will be notable clearly. However for now he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was not even county sherrif, he was a constable in the county, they are not the same. That said, there are clearly some people who have done enough while sherrif to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, but that doesn't mean that all sheriffs automatically get to keep Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dru – it seems likely that someone searching for this name will be well served by the mention in the election article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:27, 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 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films set in 2015[edit]

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

Contains only three films, and as there don't seem to be similar articles for other years, I'm going to say that Category:Films set in 2015 will suffice and this page fails WP:LISTCRUFT. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there were more films, I'd say keep it but only 3 doesn't really need an article. If there are more in the future, it can always be recreated. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films set in 2015 has six. I don't know if that's necessarily enough or too few for a standalone list here, but I'm also unfamiliar with this list/category scheme. Is it intended to target films set in a different year than the year of release and/or production? postdlf (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: I'm not familiar with the system either, but six films still isn't very many. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the intent, a list would be able to annotate that (and other details about the films) and make the intended list subject more clear. The categories have stuff like Godzilla (2014 film) in Category:Films set in 2014, so I'm not sure if that's due to poor maintenance or not, and I really don't see the point of listing or categorizing every film set in its year of release. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: What? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What what? I said if the intent is to list and categorize only films set in years other than their year of release/production, that's the kind of information that a list should annotate where a category cannot. If the intent is instead to list and categorize every film by the year in which they are set, even if (as is true of most films) they are set in the same year they are released (i.e., have a "contemporary" setting), then i don't see the point of doing that at all. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual years are generally irrelevant as settings, with the possible exceptions of 1984 and 2001. Another problem is that many films would occupy/clog multiple year lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Might work as Films set in the near future (relative to their release date). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: since "near future" is subjective, I'm assuming you mean "unspecified near future". (For instance, the original X-men trilogy.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the criterion would be that society would be more or less the same/recognizable, with just a few bells and whistles difference, e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey, not Blade Runner. (or is that still too subjective?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a formula for a mess to me, what with sorting out the "near futures" that are now present or past (such as 2001) and those that become near future as the (at the time) far future date is approached. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone goes that route, it should be the "near future" relative to when the film was produced/released. 2001 is still set in what was the future to the filmmakers even though it is the past to us now...because we live in the future! postdlf (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination, and keep the Category in-place. Frmorrison (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -to say to move this to an article that lists "possible near future projects" is like saying "Ford or Bentley may come out with a new car next year!" It probably will happen but we are not fortune tellers and should not be writing articles under mere speculation. I think the articles should be created as they happen in an effort to not create what could become a sure backlog of maybes.Canyouhearmenow 11:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Canyouhearmenow: I think you may be suffering from a slight misunderstanding - this is a list of films set in 2015, not those due to be produced in 2015. Which means that the proposal was to make a list of articles set in an unspecified near-future date, not those soon to be produced. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@G S Palmer: You know under all of this white hair used to be a full head of blonde. Just saying!Canyouhearmenow 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the category is good though. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:56, 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 02:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe LeClair[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a Roman Catholic priest, minimally notable for having been convicted of a fairly minor crime and sentenced to one year in jail — but with his crime being exclusively tied to a single local church in a single city, there's no compelling reason why this needs to be immortalized for eternity in an encyclopedia with an international readership. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a local pastor who did some bad things in his community, but on the grand scale of things he is not anybody noteworthy. This fails the threshold required by WP:PERP. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LeClair was repsonsible for a major religious turnaround in Ottawa, which is why his minor conviction had major press coverage. If he had only done one or the other, I would agree that he was not sufficiently notable. However, there are lots of local celebrities in Wikipedia. Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article as you've written it, he was responsible for an attendance and participation turnaround at one local church — which is not a reason why he would merit permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Had he somehow contributed to a "major religious turnaround" that swept all of Canada or the world, you might have a case that he warranted an article — but if all he does is get people coming back to one specific church in one specific city, that's not something that warrants the attention of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "major religious turnaround" is not really defined, but it is linked to one parish. Similarly, while Thomas S. Monson was bishop of the 6th-7th Ward in Salt Lake City sacrament meeting attendance quadrupled, but that alone would not merit him having an article. Hundreds of people get convicted of embezzlement charges, some portion of whom are sadly religious leaders. None of these facts rise above a minor local story, which is what we have. This is only running against Wikipedia's "not news" guidelines, but the "not local news" sub-guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chargoon[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage of this company in independent secondary reliable sources, while non of the sources from the article don't demonstrate notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. It is an advertisement, not an article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While something may be found in Persian, in which case I can revise this view, as things stand the article does no more than describe a vendor going about its business. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Collin[edit]

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

Unreferenced, with dubious claim of significance: I doubt that the IEEE Electromagnetics Award satisfies point two of WP:ACADEMIC. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is bloody awful, I mean really bad...but, the award you mention might confer notability under point two of WP:ACADEMIC. What is even more interesting is that point 3 of the guideline mentions that the IEEE is a notable body. So, does an award from a notable body, make you notable? No idea. I will however try to clean the article up a bit. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fixed the article up a little, noted that Collin was a IEEE fellow. Hence notable by criteria 3 of WP:ACADEMIC; he is a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). -Marcusmax(speak) 02:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to life fellow membership in IEEE, was elected to the National Academy of Engineering, one of the United States National Academies. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. As above plus stunning cites on GS. Nom is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep per WP:PROF#C3 and #C1. Incidentally, the National Academy of Engineering membership is much more significant than the IEEE Fellow, although either one is good enough for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must admit, I made a bad call on this one, and I appreciate all the people who weighed in. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:16, 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.