Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Learning Center[edit]

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

Lacks notability Muffinator (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has no sources, and it isn't notable. EMachine03 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable learning institution....William 10:59, 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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courrier (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no substantive claim of passing WP:NMUSIC — the closest thing to a notability claim here, in fact, is having been named "Band of the Month" by a media outlet which generally has next to nothing to do with music at all (and still isn't actually properly sourced.) Delete unless a major sourcing upgrade can be performed. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might say, "They formed in 2009 and since have been featured dozens of times ranging from in The Vampire Diaries to NFL commercials. In April 2014, they were ESPN's Band of The Month.", but it is unsourced, so it still can't pass WP:NMUSIC, right? EMachine03 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The band would pass WP:NMUSIC if it met any of the criteria listed there. Whether or not the article contains sources is not relevant to the band's notability. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true; a band only passes NMUSIC if the claim that it passes NMUSIC is actually cited to a reliable source. Musicians and/or their promotional teams do have a tendency to make inflated "hype" claims (e.g. "hit" status for a song that got played a few times on their local radio station, but never appeared on any of the singles charts that can actually confer notability on a song), so at least the basic claim of notability does have to be properly referenced to count as valid, even if the rest of the article isn't up to FA status yet. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a band could pass NMUSIC without even having an article here if any one of the criteria there is verifiably met ('verifiable' and 'cited' are not the same thing). --Michig (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd hope that more people wanting to write a new article about a band would measure that band against NMUSIC first to see if they qualify for an article or not — it would save us all the hassle of having to delete all the garage bands who repost their EPKs here in the hopes of getting "discovered". But NMUSIC is not fundamentally a property of the band per se, but a yardstick against which we measure the quality of an article about the band — so until we actually have an article about the band to measure, the band's nominal passage or failure of NMUSIC is a moot point. And NMUSIC does say, right in its own introduction, that the basic claim of notability has to be verifiable in a reliable source. The article doesn't have to attain GA or FA status right off the bat, but the basic claim of passing NMUSIC does have to be sourced, not merely asserted, to actually pass NMUSIC. Because guess what, sometimes bands overinflate their claims of notability in order to sound more notable than they are — so we need to be able to verify whether the claim of notability is actually true or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was unable to find much coverage of the band - there's a short Rolling Stone bio that confirms some of the statements in the article, but beyond that just these: [1], [2], [3], [4] - I'm not sure they're all reliable sources and it's a bit thin, so unless someone can find more I doubt that the band is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Rolling Stone bio looks very much like it was just summarized from their own EPK, rather than being any form of substantive coverage actually written and edited by anybody who actually works for Rolling Stone. Bearcat (talk)

Their album A Violent Flame was reviewed in CCM Magazine. (Conner, Matt. "Reviews & New Releases: Indie: Courrier: A Violent Flame", CCM Magazine (May 2011): p. 42.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - the top hits for a Google search (I tried Google news too, and got nothing) were their Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts. Not a promising sign that they come anywhere near attaining notability. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Barnes[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a member of a municipal committee in a single city, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. While there is some reliable sourcing here, there's also primary/IMDb sourcing — and if you examine it carefully, exactly none of it is actually supporting any substantive content about her career itself. Rather, every last reference in the entire article is supporting a couple of criminal charges pertaining to her driving record, or details about her personal life, that have no bearing on her notability or lack thereof. As a consequence, her notability as a politician is not properly established. Further, because the bulk of the sourcing is sitting on a drunk driving charge, she also has to be weighed against both WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E — and she doesn't really get past those rules either. Finally, if I go back to the original creation of this article in 2009, according to his edit summary the creator seems to have acted specifically because of the drunk driving incident (and the editor has been chided more than once in the past for having a major WP:NPOV problem when it comes to Vancouver municipal politics, to boot.) All of which, in a nutshell, means this has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPOL is irrelevant here, since she is not famous as a politician and the section "Politics" is completely unsourced. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, NPOL isn't "irrelevant" per se — since the article does claim that she holds a political office, it does have to be measured against that yardstick. You're correct that she doesn't pass the NPOL test, due to the lack of sourcing and the inherent non-notability of the office itself, but the NPOL test does count toward whether she qualifies for an article or not and thus isn't "irrelevant". Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG. She is not notable as an actress, her roles were extremely minor, she is not notable as a politician, no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides the horrendous BLP violations, this person is just not notable. Her acting resume is light. We have deleted or merged the articles of municipal board members who were arguably much more famous; see,e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 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 redirect to 2015 Cricket World Cup. Jenks24 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cricket World Cup knockout stage[edit]

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

Fairly useless article until the actual tournament starts next year. Between now and then it's just basically an empty template. Very much falls into WP:CRYSTAL. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's really just a bad case of WP:NOTNOW. It could be an article later, though. EMachine03 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EMachine03: this article is useless until the World Cup gets underway and some content can be added Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNOW. Contesting of Speedy Delete and Prod by article creator was without rationale and seems a case of "don't delete my article". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect) Actually, it meets WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Looking at the edit history of a similar article would suggest redirecting it to the main article for now. An even better example shows it was created about eight months before the tournament started without issue. I see no reason to delete this, esp. as it's only a few months away. If it was towards the end of next year (or later), then I might go down the delete route. I don't know why people are citing the guideline WP:NOTNOW either - have any of you actually read that page? It's to do with request for adminship! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "2011 Cricket World Cup knockout stage shows it was created about eight months before the tournament started without issue but the 2007 Cricket World Cup Super Eight stage was created on the day before it started. You see that WP:Other stuff exists, but we need to follow the guidelines rather than haggle over precedents pro or contra. People who cite NOTNOW probably confused it with WP:TOOSOON, which says "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon" Actually NOTNOW has a header that alerts users not to confuse the two, but... The special criteria listed at TOOSOON do not include sports events, though. IMO articles which describe stages of major sports events should only be branched out as soon as there is actually info available, before that the event with all its stages is covered by the parent article. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Cricket World Cup for now. Too early for an article on this, obviously, but we might as well keep the template around in the history until such time as the tournament starts. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to which bit of WP:CRYSTAL this warrants deletion? Surely you don't mean the part I've quoted above. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or, as a second choice, redirect. It is a notable, confirmed and scheduled event, so the terms of WP:CRYSTAL don't apply. And there's surely little harm in an article that demonstrates how the phase of the tournament will work, before it starts. Having said that, no great objection to a redirect either. While the article isn't doing any harm, nor is it doing much good. A redirect will at least keep the material there for future use. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Once the knockout stage starts/teams are known it can be recreated. Kante4 (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - premature but it will be needed in due course so I see no reason to destroy work that can be built on when the time comes. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Old Dominion Monarchs baseball seasons, or some similar title. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:NSEASONS, ~~completely unreferenced~~ Asdklf; (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Article now has two sources, one primary and one independent Asdklf; (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Non-notable single season of mid-tier college baseball program. Fails WP:NSEASONS: this is not an elite program with wide coverage in the national sports media, and the team did not win a national championship or even a conference championship. By long-standing precedent, if individual seasons of a given college sports team do not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSEASON, or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then such seasons may be combined into a single article by decade or other logical grouping. Here, there exist season articles for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, none of which are particularly noteworthy, and none of which satisfy WP:NSEASONS. In my estimation, they should be combined into single decade article: Old Dominion Monarchs baseball, 2010–14. If a merge is opposed, then these five individual season articles should be deleted outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other years per Dirtlawyer1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Notability#Single seasons. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dirtlawyer1 and Billcasey. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Old Dominion Monarchs baseball seasons, or some similar title. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Old Dominion Monarchs baseball team[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards per WP:NSEASONS, ~~completely unreferenced~~ Asdklf; (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Article now has two sources, one primary and one independent Asdklf; (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Non-notable single season of mid-tier college baseball program. Fails WP:NSEASONS: this is not an elite program with wide coverage in the national sports media, and the team did not win a national championship or even a conference championship. By long-standing precedent, if individual seasons of a given college sports team do not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:NSEASON, or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, then such seasons may be combined into a single article by decade or other logical grouping. Here, there exist season articles for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014, none of which are particularly noteworthy, and none of which satisfy WP:NSEASONS. In my estimation, they should be combined into single decade article: Old Dominion Monarchs baseball, 2010–14. If a merge is opposed, then these five individual season articles should be deleted outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other years per Dirtlawyer1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball/Notability#Single seasons. Billcasey905 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dirtlawyer1 and Billcasey. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 22:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comodo Antivirus[edit]

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

A very badly written content fork of Comodo Internet Security with ad hoc copy and paste of contents, which is copyright violation. ("Comodo Antivirus" and "Comodo Internet Security" are two different brands for the same thing. Advertising tactics, you know.) Codename Lisa (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might look like a a content fork, but the news article thing can be fixed. Also, you can get the antivirus by itself^[1] on their website.

^ Antivirus, Comodo. "Comodo". https://www.comodo.com/. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The link ultimately gives a copy of CIS. Also, if you want to fix anything, fix the original article. Content forks are deleted. Best regards, 03:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per OP. There is no reason for this content fork to be a separate article. --Larry (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by the op. There is not a single citation in the document itself and the reference list is wholey inadequite.--Klingon1956 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.208.201 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the condition they improve the sourcing". Comodo's Antivirus first became noteworthy as a standalone product and many continue to use it as such. However, the writing and sourcing must be improved. UKAmerican — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP. There is no reason for this content fork to be a separate article. --Simon the Palmbeachguy
Delete the page is being edited from an IP address in Chinai India where comodo has an office. Everything that has been put on the page reeks of bias and is unsupported by references --Simon the Palmbeachguy
- I am a big fan of Comodo security, but Palmbeachguy is right. I am very disappointed in Comodod for this. None of the other pages for Comodo resemble this. Horrible attempt to introduce a page. If this was by somebody inside Comodo they should be fired. --User:klingon1956 — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 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 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Kell[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NHOCKEY, I am not sure he fails #3 because I don't know which of his games to count or what to make of his CHL honors. If only his AHL games count toward 200, then he should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA the ECHL does not count toward criteria 3. Also lacks the coverage required to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Not a good sign when your biggest claim to fame is finishing second in an online poll of "most underrated player". Reso lute 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NHOCKEY as only his AHL games would count toward the 200 games. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. Closed this early as Google brings up alot of sources so thus notability is there, All in all A clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swakopmund Railway Station[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:GNG; neither reference appears to be reliable. Laun chba ller 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Idiotic nomination. It's basic common sense that this meets GNG. The main railway station of a major town. Did you bother to look in google books or Namibian newspapers?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have to agree with Dr. Blofeld on this one, this station is part of a major transport service in the country. Theirs also a good history with this station as it's also serves as a major tourism hub for the country. --///EuroCarGT 21:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Florio[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG. Coycan (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are substantive articles which mention the subject in sufficient detail to pass the GNG in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Roanoke Times. The Post-Gazette article stipulates that Florio was the ECHL's all-time career leader in games played, and the Virginian-Pilot article states that Florio was named in 1997 as Second Team all-time, which meet Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 21:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep after Ravenswing's edits. Long career and all-time ECHL leader in games played makes him very notable. bbx (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would have been a convinced and committed "delete" vote, but for the four footnotes added by Ravenswing: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article and the three articles from the Roanoke Times. Please note that the coverage is better than WP:ROUTINE in each of these four articles, but since three of them are from the same newspaper we really only have TWO independent, reliable sources to support the subject's notability per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. That's the absolute bare minimum by any standard, and subject to questioning as to the depth and significance of the coverage. In this case, the subject skates by -- barely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a good idea to keep, especially considering Ravenswing's revisions.Sadads (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. Meets WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenswing. Definitely notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

{

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Ross (British Army officer)[edit]

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

Contested prod, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The post of Lord Lieutenant is an honorary one with no political power, and there is no consensus that holders of this post are inherently notable. Colonel is below the rank which would make him inherently notable (see WP:SOLDIER) and OBEs are ten a penny. There was a comparable discussion about his predecessor Donald Hardie, but it was decided that he was notable mainly because he had held the rank of Brigadier which is inherently notable, but also because he had held the more important honour of CVO. PatGallacher (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. About the only thing I could find about Ross is his reminiscences about the regimental mascot, which gives a two-line biography (of him, not the mascot). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. His posts do not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet GNG or SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:31, 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. Michig (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benn Steil[edit]

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

Fails WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Puff piece article, by user User:Fadesga, who also created the article for the book. The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order scope_creep 17:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am still editing this article. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) and #C8 (founding editor of a notable journal). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable on grounds of being an editor-in-chief.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in secondary sources, passes WP:Prof --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not a "puff piece." there is no COI. it describes his credentials & summarizes one of his arguments in a sentence. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF. I can't see COI issue. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Munnerlyn[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:NGRIDIRON Connormah (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable "college" football player. Not entitled to a presumption of notability under WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON because he never won a major college sports award and never played a down in a regular season game in a top-tier pro football league. Fails the general notability guidelines for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. This is an example of an article stitched together from school newspapers (not "independent" sources), fansites, blogs and social media (not "reliable" sources), combined with WP:ROUTINE coverage from recruiting sites, NFL draft evaluation sites, and the mainstream media. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable under NGRIDIRON. Quis separabit? 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Siyaka[edit]

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

Article's subject may meet WP:NSPORTS but does not appear to meet the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. Lacks multiple, independent, reliable, and especially non-trivial references. KDS4444^Talk 16:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. We traditionally allow a grace period, especially for younger players. Has nominator tried searching for native-language sources? Giant Snowman 09:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY, current consensus for young players is that is sufficient. Needs expanding by a native speaker not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Siyaka has made two substitute's appearances in the fully-pro league, I cannot find any Russian, Belarusian or English language sources that would be significant coverage. Let's use common sense here - even though this might be slightly over the NFOOTBALL presumed notability line, I don't see any evidence that the article could satisfy the GNG unless he does something significant (which violates CRYSTAL). Jogurney (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NFOOTY. Here's some media coverage: Siyaka promoted to Dnepr's senior team, This year's most promising young players of the league - BlameRuiner (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a similar article about his promotion to the senior team, and it is just routine coverage. The feature in Tribuna is not routine, but it contains very little information. If there was something else I might agree on passing the GNG, but I don't think the article can until Siyaka actually does something notable. Jogurney (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is guideline, not policy. That's why we have other guidelines such as NFOOTBALL, to help us determine special situations. Since whether or not this meets NFOOTBALL isn't up for debate, this seems clear to me. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John F. McNerney[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. The references used are mostly memorials or related to the subject; the two potentially valid sources cited are AllMusic and Billboard, but neither site turns up a result. PROD by Gbawden and contested by SwishFanUSA, who later blanked the article and proposed it for deletion as WP:G7, a criteria which doesn't apply as he/she isn't the page's author. (DGG reverted his/her edit.) JSFarman (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to JSF that he bring this here, as he had tried to deal with the problems against apparent opposition. I can't attempt to judge notability in this subject, but this clearly is not a suitable article as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've declined another speedy on it, as it's not a user request case unless SwishFan proves he's the creating account as well. I can see a sad story, but no real notability in it. A tragedy in childhood, a mysterious (seemingly unreferenced and subject to a gag order) legal matter, a not very successful career, a broken romance, and a drugs death. Could be the base for a plot for a film either with big names in it for the popular market, or with unknowns for the art market. But it isn't. Peridon (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax, created by a sock. Non-notable otherwise. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As WP:CSD#A11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meta index image[edit]

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

Article on some non-notable metadata coding written by the developer of this code. Author admits self-promotion on article talk page. Article has already been G11-speedied once, taking to AfD because the current version didn't seen quite blatant enough to tag it as such again, didn't seem to quite fit into an A7 category, and figured author would immediately revert a prod tag. --Finngall ^talk 16:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From looking around the developer us using Wikipedia to assist in drumming up money to develop it as it's in kickstarter and another "give me money to make/develop this". Fails WP:N and WP:RS - Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The linked articles don't really give any information about this idea, and it hasn't been funded. yet by Kickstarter. Frmorrison (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, purely promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:MADEUPONEDAY, as well as the obvious WP:PROMOTION. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. Per nom. and prior comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:58, 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 redirect to List of Kung Fu Panda characters. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigress (Kung Fu Panda)[edit]

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

This is copy of an entry in List of Kung Fu Panda characters with very little addition. It belongs in the List rather than a stand alone article. For reference please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shifu – Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I am persuaded by the reasoning found in the "Shifu" precedent cited by User:PRehse above. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – per Jaydiem. United States Man (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as said by Jaydiem. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Davies[edit]

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

no clear notability as author, editor, or publisher DGG ( talk ) 11:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though I agree with the nominator that the article was very weak. However, I've found a number of reviews of her books, including several for her second fiction book, Lily the Silent. In my view meets the minimum for WP:CREATIVE and shows Davies is having some proven impact. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources currently in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:33, 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 redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers Live in Concert World Tour 2010[edit]

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

No reason to believe this tour was notable per WP:NCONCERT. There's a couple of references (some for an unfortunate incident which does not add to notability for the tour), but nothing substantial that discusses the tour in any kind of depth and suggests that it was an important thing, not just a promotion for an album. It's just another thing of some length that happened over a period of time, it's what pop musicians do. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour Wow...how the heck did this attack page-like tone against Demi Lovato get through? 'Interned in a treatment center'?! Are you kidding me? That deserves a WP:TROUT. Otherwise this is an overstuffed article that hasn't stood the test of time for a group that no longer exists. Poorly sourced using shaky-cam fan video 'articles' for the general body, with the only thing actually sourced well being Lovato seeking treatment that belongs in an article besides this, this is a top-heavy article that deserves a one-sentence redirect to the group's main page. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nate, you're correct: I should have looked closer. I have removed it as a BLP violation and notified the editor who added it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonas Brothers#Concert Tour – per Nate. United States Man (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besik Dekanoidze[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a coherent counterargument. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirkir Glay[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Football player with minimal sourcing and no significant achievements. Additionally, he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable player for KF Tirana. He does have three appearances with a team, but it's a very weak source supporting it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 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. Once he makes an appearance for KF Tirana in the Albanian Superliga, he will then be deemed notable as it is a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 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. Michig (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argjend Malaj[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) 15:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not going to piggy-back all of the articles onto this AfD, but this is one of a number of articles started about KF Tirana footballers. The articles have several factors in common: no clear assertion of notability, no or weak sources, and editing by a small group of editors or one editor using multiple accounts. Sir Sputnik's nomination is spot on here: this person fails both WP:GNG and the specific notability guidelines for athletes. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 25 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. Once he makes an appearance for KF Tirana in the Albanian Superliga, he will then be deemed notable as it is a fully professional league.IJA (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 27 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) 16:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY I am usually the one who creates the pages of Albanian footballers, but someone seems to have been messing around with KF Tirana's new signings which is a shame. I agree that this particular player does not meet the necessary conditions. I shall re-create this page with greater substance once he has a reasonable amount of first team games under his belt in the Albanian Superliga. Oltianruci (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Qantas Flight 32. Michig (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Crespigny[edit]

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

WP:BIO1E CorrectKissinTime (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qantas Flight 32, the WP:ONEEVENT for which he is known. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does it lack any clear claim to significant notability, it is written in horribly uneven style.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. de Crespigny is mildly well-known, but only in the context of this air accident. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qantas Flight 32. De Crespigny also wrote a book about the same event that was modestly successful, but not enough that I think he'd meet WP:AUTHOR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 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 both. Michig (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shota Kashia[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 25 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) 10:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gillespie[edit]

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

Actor who fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The only search results for him include his Twitter account, IMDB page, Facebook page, or Vimeo account (i.e. self-promotional pages that millions of non-notable people also have). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. However I would point out that IMDb is not a promotional site like the others. It is an attempt to compile all the information on all actors in all films, which is not always reliable for some things, but it is not an indiscriminate creation of links to whoever wants to be there, people there have actually had some link to some film, but that alone does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edem Rjaïbi[edit]

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

May meet criteria in WP:NSPORTS but fails to meet the more-basic requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 13:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. 212.118.232.206 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was called up to the Tunisian national football team, the link by Reuters says. ~~He played in three matches of the national team, according to soccerway.com.~~ VfB Stuttgart is interested in his services, according to http://www.sportal.de. And above all, he played in a notable and famous team in a fully professional African league. See also this, if you want to improve the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Individual has played for a team in a fully professional league and so passes. WP:NFOOTY. However, Vejvančický should check Soccerway again, as the player was merely an unused substitute for Tunisia and has not yet actually played. However, article needs expanding building on his international squad call up and his Tunisian Cup win would be a good starting point. The nominating editor would do well to inform other editors how this player fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, my mistake for which I apologize. Thank you for correcting me, Fenix down. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Also, soccerway indicates he has played in continental cup competition between two teams from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professional footballer who passes the inclusion guidelines of WP:NFOOTY. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable as he has played in a fully professional football league. IJA (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With noted sources, clearly meets WP:GNG. Which we shouldn't be needing to check given he easily meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving and not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:04, 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. There is no point keeping this open. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Afridi[edit]

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

While subject appears to meet the criteria of WP:NSPORTS, he does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Cannot identify multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial references. KDS4444^Talk 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The man has played Test cricket, never mind first-class cricket, and therefore meets requirements of WP:CRIN with something to spare. If you feel the article needs more citations, then tag it as such with "refimprove". Jack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would add that ESPNcricinfo is an impeccable source for cricket data. However, I will add CricketArchive to the article too as further verification. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jack. —Zia Khan 15:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - possibly the worst ever cricket AfD ever! He's a Test cricketer, who played for his country in international matches at the highest level!!! Not to mention having a substantial domestic first-class career! Easily meets WP:CRIN, WP:ATH, by extension WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CRIN. Fai zan 17:50, 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. Michig (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahathir Azeman[edit]

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

Player has not played first team football in a fully professional league, nor senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No other achievements have garnered sufiicient significant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. References given are purely to routine transfer activity or youth activity. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware I strongly voted keep for this player nearly a year ago, but to be honest, nothing has happened in his career since then of note, and I am now leaning more toward the delete votes in the previous discussion which suggest a lot of the coverage is routine. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous keep was at heart people looking at crystal balls and assuming he would come to cross a notability threshold. That has not happened, and this has become a classic example of why deletion discussions should focus on what has happened, not what we assume will happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 26 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) 10:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 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. Michig (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EWDraw[edit]

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

WP:DISCRIMINATE Sulaimandaud (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The software's features are not notable and it is "indiscriminate" information. Frmorrison (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like it has Copy Violations. Regardless no real notable information anyways. -Pmedema (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not notable and possibly copied from elsewhere. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas simply copied off of some site. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copy violations and not notable anyway --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 04:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SP Memorial Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Article about a school with no assertion of its notability and no references to verify anything about it. KDS4444^Talk 11:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recognised degree-awarding institution. I would like to correct you, this article is about a college located in Allahabad. Since the college offers recognized degree it is notable. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to return the favor: WP:PROF is a notability guideline for people, not institutions, and so does not apply here. The location of the college is irrelevant, as is whether or not it offers a particular kind of degree-- what matters is whether or not there are multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources which discuss the subject. If you or anyone could please provide some of these, that would be most helpful. KDS4444^Talk 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't like favors. I have corrected my post as well as article too, have a look. I think your AfD was wrong, it may be possible you were right just because of poor quality of the article.CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable college.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The college is notable.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 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. Michig (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FATA Cheetahs[edit]

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

Article does not assert how the subject is notable, and provides no references to material other than trivial mentions or score tables. Article needs multiple non-trivial references to, reliable, independent sources, and I do not see them for this team. KDS4444^Talk 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They play in a top-level domestic league, which would seem to me to pretty much confer automatic notability. The lack of sources is probably no more than a reflection of their status as a http://www.dawn.com/news/1084267 new team]. And there are sources out there (search for both Cheetahs and Cheetas). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professional sports team which plays official Twenty20 matches and plays Twenty20 matches at the highest domestic level of Pakistani cricket. I've moved the article as the team name was spelt incorrectly. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable domestic team. Fai zan 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no indication of notability. ... discospinster _talk 15:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiyavasu Bhadauria[edit]

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

Article has no evidence of subjects notability, all sources offered on talk page are of a primary nature. New editor with a particular interest in this article keeps removing the speedy, despite apparent failure of WP:GNG, forcing AFD. Dolescum (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, eligible for speedy deletion under WP:A7, no evidence of notability. Possible WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO issue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 13:36, 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. The sources in the article (and the ones provided in this discussion) do not seem to be convincing evidence of notability. Claims that Leffel has won the highest awards in his field are also not convincing. Consensus at this time seems clear that Leffel does not pass WP:GNG. The work that User:Ane wiki has done on this article is good, but unfortunately, no amount of good work can make someone notable when they aren't. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 01:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Leffel[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about Leffel in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, primary or short quotes from him. None have any depth of coverage about him. A search found nothing better and found no good reviews of his books. Looking at WorldCat shows his most held book is at 191 libraries, a figure which from what I've read is small. There is lots of awards listed but none are major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another voice to Delete. He has a paid editor working for him, User:Ane wiki - she disclosed, which is to be appreciated -- and I've given her a lot of directions on where she could look for evidence of notability. I don't think there's anything to be found, TBH, and the whole history of the page indicates extensive self-editing and sock-puppetry.AdventurousMe (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an odd target for deletion. The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today^[1], has written for the biggest and most respected travel writing and journalism outlets^[2], has multiple published books^[3], and speaks at the largest conferences in travel^[4]. This is a clear expert in the field, and a valuable entry for those looking to learn more. Page can be improved, but should not be deleted.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Andyopteris is the third brand new account to have opposed the deletion of this page, edited by multiple single-purpose accounts including the subject's own, so far - there are two others on the article talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.148.191.133 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.90.102.110). All sources any of these accounts have cited are primary, not secondary. The primary link s/he cites to SATW lists a total of 80 winners in a single year and does not demonstrate any notability for these awards, particularly since it appears contestants enter themselves and pay a fee to do so - http://www.satwf.com/2014_SATW_Foundation_Lowell_Thomas_Travel_Journali/Categories; the primary link s/he cites to the conference does not demonstrate it's the largest conference in travel (surely there would be reliable secondary sources if this were the case?), and there are multiple speakers http://tbexcon.com/us/speakers/; neither the conference nor the awards have their own Wikipedia entry. Amazon reviews and a link to the subject's own website cannot establish notability. As per User:Duffbeerforme lacks any depth of coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet WP:AUTHOR. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing pages on here for the past 4 years User:AdventurousMe. Feel free to disagree with my assessment, but please don't accuse me of sockpuppetry without doing the slightest research and looking at my contribs page. Lack of a Wikipedia entry does not indicate lack of significance: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and our dear Wikipedia is far from comprehensive. Many of the most prestigious awards are self-nominated and then judged—no one would say that process, nor the number of awards, somehow makes the Cannes Lions less prestigious. My main point here is that a simple cleanup with better sources would improve this page, but little is served by its deletion.--Andyopteris (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies, User:Andyopteris. I clicked the wrong contributions page, which pulled up only your contribution to that page. I'd agree that if better sources can be found, the page should be kept - but better sources have not been produced as yet. At the moment, like your own Wikipedia page, which I note has also been deleted, he's failing WP:AUTHOR because of primary sources and lack of depth of coverage. If anyone can provide strong sources - and the subject has a paid editor working for him looking for them -- then it would move to a keep. I'd suggest, if you're arguing to keep, that you find reliable secondary sources attesting to notability, and the relevance of the awards. AdventurousMe (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:AdventurousMe-I was all for deletion of the page about me (but oddly flattered that an editor that had previously worked on "baldness" and "erectile dysfunction" has also chosen me as a worthy topic). Anyhow, secondary sources shouldn't be difficult to find here, and I'll look into why SATW, NATJA, and TBEX don't have their own pages along the lines of British Guild of Travel Writers. My concern is that these standards as applied here would eliminate essentially all modern travel writers, which goes against the spirit if not the letter of the rule.--Andyopteris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine User:Andyopteris! Mercifully, I'm in no danger of getting my own page. I guess the query here is in what form he's notable: because to me it seems as though he's not a notable journalist (50-odd articles on not particularly amazing outlets, and I'm sure he'd not hit the criteria over at the Journalism working project), and his books aren't particularly notable, certainly not by the standards applied to book authors in other sectors. Is he really *that* notable in the new media landscape - as a blogger? If so, I'd expect him to have some depth of coverage. It really doesn't help that he's been editing his own page, and there's several single-purpose accounts that have also worked on the page and that page only, and now has a paid editor working for him. He seems to me to be a reasonably successful working travel writer - not a super-star, a best-seller, someone who's transformed the landscape, or built a particularly significant body of work, but someone who's currently doing OK -- and not someone who'd have his own Wikipedia page in the normal scheme of things. I guess the concern here is that if for every industry we featured people who were doing relatively well, Wikipedia would be over-run with more-or-less obscure BLPs, and that's why the policy on depth of coverage in reliable sources exists. But I'd welcome clarification on this: on what, particularly, makes him notable. Do look into SATW, NATJA and TBEX as well. If you've got reliable secondary sources on them, they might well deserve their own articles. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is. If new sources are found during this discussion we may change our minds. If better sources appear after deletion there will be a voluntary to write this article again. WP is over its topics. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. Please, if this is not the place for this comment, let me know and I'll move to the talk page. I understand the points explained - very patiently - by AdventurousMe in the talk page, but.. what makes someone "notable" in the world of travel writers? There are individuals who make a great contribution to his profession but not to the point of having a direct mention in NY Times, and still are big influencers. The fact of being widely quoted, as is the case of TL, does not speak about his reputation? In fact, I'm not sure if we can apply the same standards of "notability" for a novelist, a journalist or a travel writer; every profession have a set of media who are authorities in the field, they may not have the significance of other media, but they are reliable media in the sector. When these other media will begin to be reliable for Wikipedia?. AdventurousMe said on the talk page: "US News saying TL won a NATJA award is a great secondary source, because it demonstrates that both the awards and TL are noteworthy, and is secondary, not primary. NATJA saying TL won an award is primary and, frankly, fairly trivial".. NATJA is the highest award you can receive as a travel writer, but only exists if it appears in US News?. I have introduced new links in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with expansion. As mentioned by Andyopteris above, the subject has been the recipient of a significant award or honor in his field,^[5] which would seem to meet Criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, citations in US News, USA Today Travel, CBS News, Reuters, Travel + Leisure and Newsweek indicate that he has created a collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR), or, when journalism awards are considered alongside the citations, "regarded as an important figure by peers" (Criterion 1 of WP:AUTHOR). That said, the above mentioned citations ought to be expanded or paraphrased in the article text, rather than just listed. Nmillerche (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be more persuaded that these awards were significant if anyone could provide a secondary source to them: they're open only to members of a specific organisation, they give out 80 a year to around 1500 entrants, and I can't find any secondary sources testifying to their relevance, and none has yet been cited here. Whereas if I Google Thomas Cook Travel Book Awards, or Dolman Travel Book Awards, I pull up a tonne of reliable secondary sources as to who's won. That shows that the Thomas Cook Travel Book Awards are notable, the Dolman Travel Book Awards are notable, and it suggests that these SATW awards are not the highest awards in travel writing, or they'd get more coverage.

I also think there's a significant difference between being asked to quote for an article on what luggage to buy - the US News piece, which interviewed four people on luggage - and being the *subject* of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. These aren't making him the subject of their pieces. They're pieces about something else which cite the person. Newspapers do grab a lot of quotes from people: it's how they operate. If there was a piece that, for example, testified to his date of birth and education, as you'd expect in a piece that had him as the subject, that would be evidence of notability. If there were multiple reviews of his books in reliable secondary sources, again, that would lean towards a keep.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more quotes of TL in major media, which I did not include in the article.--Ane wiki (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SATW awards have good coverage in reliable media, I just uploaded the list on the talk page. And something more: going to the extreme, reality TV participants are more likely to be considered "notable" than an author with books in print because reliable media have talked about them and their lives, even though they haven't done anything notable? I know it does not work that way, but with an example taken to the extreme, we can think if the "notability" criteria may not be as dependent on the media coverage, and more dependent of the subject´s history.--Ane wiki (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad we've given up the idea that these are the single most important awards in travel writing. If you can find a reliable secondary source saying that he's won one of the awards that are listed, that would really help support the idea that he is himself notable. As a paid editor, User:Ane Wiki I don't think this is the place to argue for overturning WP:AUTHOR and WP:V because the man who is paying you to argue his case doesn't seem to fit: there are all sorts of reliable niche sources for writers which cover writers extensively (New York Review of Books, Creative Review, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, etc) while a myriad mainstream publications run book reviews, travel book round-ups, books of the year, their own book awards, their own blog awards, etc.etc. Genuinely notable authors are not short of reliable coverage, though they may not attract the volume of coverage that celebrities do. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does exist, as seen here^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanedit (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AdventurousMe if you see - through the links - that the SATW award is important, and if TL appears in the official website of the award as a winner, what other evidence is needed? And something about me as a paid editor: the subject of the article paid me for adapt this article to Wikipedia standards; and if I took the job is because I thought there was significant coverage in reliable media to meet the requirements, obviously, for a traveler writer. You mention the "New York Review of Books," but in my opinion, you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards. I also think that we should be commenting this on the talk page, but I wanted to expose my opinion here.--Ane wiki (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Ane Wiki the article is tagged for primary sources and notability. Using reliable secondary sources, with good depth of coverage, is key to establishing notability in BLPs. This is why the nomination for deletion says: "Not notable. Lacks coverage about Leffel in independent reliable sources. Sourcing is by him, primary or short quotes from him. None have any depth of coverage about him." So that's what you need to find: independent, reliable, secondary sources with a good depth of coverage. If someone notable wins a notable award, that should be reported somewhere that's not the awards website. If someone's notable, there'll be profiles on reliable sources covering their early life. That's what you should be looking for. If you've found this significant coverage of him in reliable media, please do add it to the article. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a few comments.

"The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today". The link supplied does not show this. It shows a single year, nothing repeating. It also shows he did not win the largest award, that was won by Mary Jo McConahay. Also above Leffel in the main category was Genevieve Shaw Brown, Kerri Westenberg, Ellen Creager and Jill Schensul. SATW awards may claim to be the "premier competition" but does anyone independent back this up.

SATW awards are a pay for play award with a maximum prize of $1,500. Not a major awards. The large number they give out also dilutes the significance of individual category awards.

These awards, or the NAJTA awards may be up in the heirachy of awards specifically targeted at North American travel writers (a subset of writers is one region) but they are not the highest awards available to travel writers. They are eligible to win open writing awards.

The SATW award coverage shown at Talk:Tim Leffel is very underwhelming. Short blogs promoting a few of the winners and some listings. Not enogh to make the awards themself notable, even less so for someone not mentioned in any of these sources

Nmillerche claims Leffel's work "has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Where are these articles or reviews.

"you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards." They are handled with the same standards. Travel writers are not given special treatment. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The subject has repeatedly won the largest awards in travel writing today" refers not only to the SATW, as shown in the article. And in that link we can see that Leffel won one of the categories of Lowell Thomas award.

And when I say "you are equating travel writers with traditional writers, and they can not be handled with the same standards" I'm not asking for special treatment. I am indicating that travel writers do not get the same treatment in the major media, and that it should be taken into account.. With very few exceptions, the most important traveler writers only have extensive coverage in online media and pages that started as self published and now have a remarkable reputation within the genre. That's what I mean: travel writers will never have an award like the Pulitzer, and perhaps the USA Today will never make them an interview. So it seems that in regard to travel writers, no award is important, no website is important just because they are not mentioned in major media, that generally do not deal with travel writers; they only quote them in some articles - as in the case of Leffel. So in this context, the quotes do not matter? I know that every day hundreds of writers are quoted in hundreds of articles and they don´t deserve an article in Wikipedia. But if you have quotes, work, books, awards, that should make a difference.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. Travel writers can win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer, or any of a myriad notable, established book and journalism awards, not to mention scholarships, fellowships, etc: they can be the subject of profiles and articles, cf Jan Morris, Bruce Chatwin, Paul Theroux. There are all sorts of niche awards for industry writers in one country: that doesn't make people who've won them notable, otherwise we'd be submitting everyone who's won (eg) a tech journalism award for Australia & New Zealand, or a Sports Writing awards for the UK. Self-published books, which these appear to be, don't carry significant weight unless they're the rare breakthrough self-published success that attracts significant coverage and hits bestseller lists. You've so far failed to demonstrate WP:AUTHOR: there's still not one secondary source listed. Please stop arguing for special treatment on the grounds that he's a travel writer: he needs to hit the same standards as any other creative in any sector. Or, if you do think travel writers should be treated differently, and you have a reasoned argument for this, take it up on the discussion pages for the relevant community standards. Please disclose your affiliation first, though. AdventurousMe (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every genre has his own awards. Being at the top of your field means being recognized by these genre awards as you are being compared to others writing in the same genre. You tell me that the top writers of each genre does not deserve to be in Wikipedia, unless they win the Feature Article section of the Pulitzer or a general award. As we commented on talk page, with these standards, almost no travel writer (or other genre writer) is going to be "notable" and admins will have to check 200 travel writers pages.--Ane wiki (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wilfully misunderstanding. If you want to rewrite Wikipedia's community standards to include your client, I suggest you go to the relevant pages and discuss the issue on the talkboard there, disclosing first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) And, yes, very few travel writers are notable.AdventurousMe (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not trying to rewrite the rules. Simply, I think that in addition to the awards - discussed or not - and the notability - or not - of the people who write about TL, dozens of mentions and quotes in various articles on reliable media could indicate that an author is notable, even though these articles are not about him. And these are not only quotes of Leffel´s books, they also talk about him - whether they are short commentaries, they´re signs that the writer is an authorized voice and a reference -. Then we can discuss, as we are doing, if is applicable, but please do not say that I am wilfully misunderstanding.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In talk page, AdventurousMe started new sections for any editor who wishes to list sources. In this place I am adding sources, and trying to demonstrate the notability of the people who wrote about TL.--Ane wiki (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The subject's notability is borderline, no clear consensus seemed to arise one way or the other. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 01:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor Gadon[edit]

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

This article fails general notability guidelines. Articles are supposed to have multiple, indepth, independent sources. We have one, in-depth source that comes from Gadon's employer and is not clearly independent. She also seems to not meet any of the guidelines for inclusion of academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article did fail notability guidelines but has since been improved with numerous reliable references. Subject is a notable art history scholar who is widely quoted by other historians and easily meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending other improvements to the article. At the moment, these are not significant, in-depth coverage, just evidence that she's published some articles and is an art historian - not that she's a notable one. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 4. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Obviously of interest in academia considering the various refs. Put a "more refs needed" tag on it. If she was a male historian with that many refs I doubt she'd be considered for AfD at all. Let's be inclusionist here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to her employer's profile of her, she has a single book to her name, The Once and Future Goddess. It is quite well-cited on Google scholar (over 250 citations) but I could not find enough (or any) reliably published mainstream-media reviews to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR, I don't think the one publication is enough for WP:PROF#C1, and no other sign of notability is evident. I think all of the references in the article are actually citations to her book, and are passing mentions rather than being in-depth reviews of the book. In addition, with all notability being through the book, WP:BIO1E is also relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - impressive resume, seems like someone I'd like to know more about. Personal interest isn't reason to keep, but it seems like there should be references available to show her notability at least within her particular field. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did more exploring and I think there are other aspects here that possibly might be brought out. First, Gadon is a western scholar who is into Eastern religion, which generally is not well understood by western thinkers and not much respected by the academic establishment; to some extent, Gadon links two continents, West and East, and the mix is sometimes difficult. Hinduism is somewhat related to astrology which causes some of us western-oriented science-types (like myself) to not give much credence or respect. This is somewhat the case with feminism (a related area: Gadon's work is related to feminist-oriented takes on Eastern religion and she is somewhat of an activist) too, and it can get kind of weird, when Stonehenge is sometimes interpreted as being symbolic of a vagina, that Eastern-type mysticism is not well understood, and Wikipedian contributors tend (90%+) to be male (like myself). So I think we need to be open-minded. Her book The Once and Future Goddess has had a big impact in the feminist/spiritualist/Eastern-oriented religion communities. She is acknowledged as an authority in lectures, in programming, and she was a prominent speaker at the Indira Gandhi National Center for the Arts in 2005. The Los Angeles Times thinks she is wise but what do they know. Gadon is the type of person who I would love to find myself sitting next to on a long train ride, and to query her about all of her travels and beliefs, and discuss deep metaphysics and philosophy with, and maybe even debate about what life is all about. Not that that is a Wikipedia requirement for notability; just a-sayin'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Forbes magazine mention makes her notable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than mentions are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Many sources are more than mere mentions such as this review of her book, and this article in Forbes discusses Gadon's thinking at length. Plus there is a full review in the Examiner which one can find by copy-pasting the following string in the browser bar: "The book mixes facts, quotes and stories, and the opinions of the author. The facts are interesting but tend toward dry. Obviously, Ms. Gadon has made a huge effort to get every historical reference scrupulously correct." And the other sources which are a line or two suggest that EG is respected academically, with her works cited.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources now added to the article constitute significant coverage per WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In depth treatment is required. Not present here. A Wikipedia BLP requires substantial career achievement. Not apparent here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

As Tomwulcer has noted above, sources such as the Environmental Ethics book review and The Forbes article demonstrate far more than "trivial" coverage. See WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is no mention of "career achievement" in WP:BASIC 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who beefed it up. I'm unwatching this discussion but watching the article so can get a chance to read it and follow interest links, just for fun :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24.151.10.165 Do you happen to know if there is a mirror of the Forbes article anywhere else? Every time I try to read it (to evaluate the claims made here that its coverage of the subject is nontrivial) I get redirected to Forbes' front page. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experiencing the redirection problem myself (Browser: Firefox) and do not know of a mirror site. As a stopgap, I'll post a slightly long excerpt from the two page article, outdented for readability. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(slimmed down per Tomwsulcer's advice re COPYVIO below) "I was recently introduced to Elinor Gadon’s spectacular treatise The Once and Future Goddess. It sits at my bedside table with an accompanying journal filled with notes. Goddess synthesizes archeological and anthropological research of the last half century to track the evolution of the feminine identity over the last 12,000 years, from the very earliest hunter-gatherers, to today’s still patriarchal society."

An additional source is this newspaper article Images Of Women In Art, Religion which draws on Gadon's work and travel in India to analyze developments in the study of female religious imagery. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I think this Women's Studies Quarterly article The Once and Future Heroine: Paleolithic Goddesses and Popular Imagination might be a very good reference but JSTOR only displays the first page. I believe we have some Wikipedians with JSTOR access, but I do not know how to contact them to ask if they can retrieve this. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Toledo Blade source to article, thanks. The Forbes citation I can read, but first there is an advertisement to skip. Last, we probably should not copy swaths of the Forbes article here on the talk page because of WP:COPYVIO maybe we should trim it substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does seem to me that similar coverage for a male scholar, or for a scholar in a different field, would have been a definite keep by this point. The various reviews of The Once and Future Goddess, surely count as solid coverage, as well as the Hindu article (The Hindu is one of India's oldest and best known newspapers). The nomination may have been warranted at the time; it has since been improved more than enough to keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are fairly evenly split between keeping and deletion, and as this has already been here for three weeks it seems unlikely that a further relist will change this. Michig (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Black[edit]

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

Non-notable college professor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF GrapedApe (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Can't find cites on GS. Maybe somebody else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, a BLP with no references, reads very promotional. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His book Petrolia has 51 Google scholar citations (the rest are in single digits when they're found at all), not enough for a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, but it does have some four published reviews: JSTOR 3594746 JSTOR 3985468 JSTOR 25147879 doi:10.1086/533300. I think that's not unusual for an academic book of this type, but if he had two books with this level of attention I might !vote keep. As it is, I think there's a WP:BIO1E problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He has a significant published output. Being published by academic publishers suggests notability; as do his editorial appointments, some of which are not posts that non-entities get. His present post seems to be rather higher than head of a university department. That post would be held by a professor (with a chair), who would certainly be notable; so, surely, the holder of a higher level post is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in his CV rises to the level of any of the WP:PROF standards.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I have tagged the page for speedy deletion. First, because it is horrendously promotional and, second, that's not very surprising given that the text is either verbatim copied or slightly re-phrased from his own (also rather commercial and not very academic) website (here). --Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed the promotionalism and the copyvio, and therefore removed the speedy tag. . The author of a CHOICE outstanding academic book is notable as an author--I'm adding the reference, and the rest is supported by his official CV. (As for WP:PROF, it depends on the reception of his books--there is no presumption of notability , as Penn State-Altoona is not a research university DGG ( talk )
- But that CHOICE designation doesn't make the book notable, so how could it make the author notable?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. user:Randykitty and User:DGG did a good job in cutting out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It deeply concerns me that admins who should know better are !voting keep for an unreferenced BLP. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI very definitely feel that a CHOICE Outstanding Books designation : does indeed make the book notable. (and in turn having writing a notable book normally makes the author notable). And if I have the chance--I would love to demonstrate this by writing an article about every one of them and their authors. They only reason I hesitate is I've been one of their reviewers for years now, though of course I wouldn't write an article on a book I reviewed, no matter how good I said it was). It's a selective review journal in the first place--the policy is not to bother with books that are not recommended unless they are so bad it's necessary to call them to notice; and the selection for Outstanding are made not by us ordinary reviewers, but by their editorial staff, though obviously based on what we say in our reviews.
Comment2 I do not understand what you mean by unreferenced; the significance of the book is demonstrated by the reviews; the routine noncontroversial aspects of the career by the official bio, unless there a reason for a bona fide challenge. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "routine noncontroversial aspects" are part of the body of the article, which typically are required to have in-line citations in a BLP. This article lacks any independent reliable citations about Black as a person. The reviews are about Petrolia, not Black. I'm not convinced that those reviews equate to Black making a major impact in his field. Not only is there no clear guidance on what a "CHOICE" designation is worth, we have no independent reliable sourcing to show that Crude Reality was awarded anything at all. A search of ACRL Choice reveals nothing about the book and the claim is that they handed out the award. I honestly can't understand the defense being mounted for this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - no secondary sources attesting to his notability, just evidence he's a published academic, of which there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, around the world. Like User:Chris troutman I'm confused as to why this should stay. AdventurousMe (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he passes the notability requirements for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of book reviews in academic journals, not just of Petrolia (cited in the article) but also Crude Reality: [5], [6], [7]. There's enough there to satisfy WP:GNG and probably WP:NACADEMICS #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in the article and listed above. -- GreenC 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 01:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Lucre (band)[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. No sign of notability. Sole link on page goes to a non-existent page StuartDouglas (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG and BAND. No sources are currently cited. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two apparently independently notable members means that we shouldn't just delete this as it is a plausible search term that should redirect somewhere with details on the band. Given the strong connection to L.A. Guns, perhaps that would be a suitable target to merge and redirect. If verifiability is concern, there are several book sources that discuss the band: [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment A redirect to LA Guns might be an idea, I'd say, but the links simply mention that the band was formed, which isn't really 'discussion' and doesn't establish any notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -Fails WP:GNG, WP:Notability and WP:NBAND, so why are we debating this article? LOLCanyouhearmenow 14:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The preceding comment was posted by Canyouhearmenow who probably just forgot to sign. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately sometimes my keyboard sticks and I think it worked when it didnt. Thank you!Canyouhearmenow 14:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments by the delete voters are substantially more convincing than the others. MQS comments that it meets WP:NF with no discussion of why or how. Tokyogirl79 and Frmorrison reference the single major review that the film received, but another editor reminds us that WP:NFILM requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Consensus is that the film is not notable, however there does appear to be some agreement that the organization by the same name might meet our notability guidelines. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 01:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Living Hope[edit]

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

I don't find evidence that this film has achieved note as called for under WP:NFILM. The third-party references that mention Living Hope refer to the ministry by the name "Living Hope" that the film is about but not to the film. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? I don't see any notes particularly pertinent to documentaries, secular or otherwise, in WP:NF, except in the non-germane criterion "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Also, what's secular about this church-oriented documentary? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes? Documentaries are covered under WP:NF and not some separate guideline. My thought using common sense is that small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage as their bigger, better funded, big studio produced brethren. Thus, when looking for sources, we do not have a realistic expectation of such being covered in New York Times or Variety. Being a Christian-related film, we would expect Christian-related coverage... coverage independent from the production itself but reliable enough for what is being sourced. I did not refer to the "other attributes to consider", and my "weak keep" is based upon that coverage being just barely enough to meet WP:NF. Not excessive, no... but non non-existent either. Just barely enough. And I chose "secular" as a descriptive because the film's story is associated with a Christian ministry but does not preach that faith's religious message. If I am mis-using that term, then excuse me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I realize documentaries are covered under WP:NF. It's that instead of merely writing "just meeting WP:NF", you wrote "just meeting WP:NF for a secular documentary", as though you would have reached a different conclusion if it were a different kind of film. This led me to think you'd found something in WP:NF that gives additional leeway for secular documentaries.

As for "small budget, independent documentary films do not get the same level of coverage", isn't that sort of the same thing as saying that small budget, independent documentary films are less likely to meet WP:NF? In the same way that local garage bands are less likely to meet the guidelines under WP:BAND—we don't lower the bar for them, we delete them routinely—and not only do we delete them, but when it comes to bands we even delete them speedily. I haven't before come across the idea that we lower the bar for subjects that because of some characteristic are less likely to meet WP:N or one of its offspring than other subjects of the same type (in this case, a film) but without that characteristic (in this case, being a small, independent documentary). —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speaking about the topic of neighborhood bands, just about a low-budget independent film that has just enough coverage to meet the intent and purpose of WP:NF. I am not "lowering the bar", but in considering the topic I am not holding it ridiculous heights either. Indeed, there are hundreds or thousands of indie docs that do not come even this close. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you weren't speaking of neighborhood bands. The nature of an analogy is to compare something that is the topic of discussion to something else. ~~Anyway, can you please provide examples of this coverage? As I said in my nomination, I'm not finding it. TokyoGirl has provided just one example.~~ —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. I've found a review by the Dove Foundation and while the coverage here is very, very light it's enough that so far I'm leaning towards a weak keep as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a notable review. Frmorrison (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review-based criterion from WP:NFILM is that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

Delete: Copying my comment from the article's talk page: "[...] after excluding the results that were obviously connected to the ministry or the production company, it seems to me that the ministry Living Hope is borderline notable and sufficiently covered; the film Living Hope is much less so. More should be included in this article about the ministry, as it seems unlikely that the film achieves notability on its own." That comment was from just before the film was released, as I recall, but the article wasn't nominated for deletion at the time. I think that this could be an article on the ministry which mentions the video, but I don't think that the film itself satisfies WP:NFILM at this time. I'd expect a notable film with a Christian subject (secular or otherwise) to be well-covered by Christian media, and notwithstanding the one major review this film hasn't achieved that coverage. Ivanvector (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that myself—the ministry might merit an article—and, of course, it could be mentioned in that article that this film had been made about it.—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- upon review this film fails WP:NFILM and fails WP:Notability all at the same time. I agree with Ivanvector that the film would at least have major coverage from the Christian market but has very little to none. Delete away!--Canyouhearmenow 12:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 01:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Wise[edit]

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

I am not finding any reliable sources in which Wise has been discussed in more than a passing mention in the context of "It's My Birthday". Laun chba ller 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to It's My Birthday. The sourced content here that isn't in the article on the single could be summarised in one sentence. I found very little coverage of Wise, and almost all just mentions him in relation to the single. --Michig (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. 2.96.18.14 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: the above comment is the sole edit by user 2.96.18.14. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is problematic from a WP:BLP perspective. Featuring on one single does not provide sufficient notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid creating articles on minors unless they are clearly notable, the subject here is not clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wise is not a minor, he's 17! He became a major at age 16, surely?--Laun chba ller 22:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age of majority in the US is 18 (21 if you want to drink booze). He's definitely a minor until then. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no particularly important information that merits merging it to It's My Birthday. It seems he is not notable enough (yet), maybe when and if his career takes off. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 04:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -Subject is a non-notable and fails WP:BLP guidelines.--Canyouhearmenow 12:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The subject certainly does not seem to meet GNG; specifically, I think WP:BLP1E would apply here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The keep side have made a meritorious argument that the subject has been the subject of sufficient coverage and the main disagreement here, whether or not to merge the content with the main watermelon article, is an issue for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon steak[edit]

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

Yes, you can grill watermelon, as a couple of recipes sampled here attest. Unfortunately, grilled corn, grilled salmon, grilled steak and such do not exist. (And now I'm hungry.) What we have here is one, at most two, sentences for watermelon. SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Watermelon - Redirect this baby into Watermelon, and then sum up the information in a couple of sentences. This does not require a stand alone article, but it also does not deserve to be deleted into oblivion. Marcusmax(speak) 05:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Watermelon. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There's abundant coverage of watermelon steaks in the reliable sources. This is too important a topic for us to lose focus with a merge. Not sure why theres comparison to 'grilled salmon' , 'grilled steak' etc. Like any other steak, watermelon steak can be fried, roasted or baked - it's quite a broad class of food. When baked it has an interesting fish like texture. There's even receipies out there for uncooked watermelon steak. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, sure, redirect). Sorry FeydHuxtable, but I'm not feeling you--I assume your last comment, on uncooked watermelon steak (which is, therefore, a slice of watermelon) is a joke appropriate to the summer atmosphere on Wikipedia. So if you don't like those examples, would you support Grilled peach, Grilled cantaloupe, Grilled iceberg lettuce? All are delicious. (A case can be made for Grilled salad, of course--which is much more than one single ingredient thrown on a grill.) Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - The article is about a way to prepare watermelon, so merge it to that article. While this may have been covered in the press recently (I recall seeing a couple of articles), these articles do not have the required depth needed to establish the article as a standalone subject. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination implies that an article on the particular presentation of a food cannot be notable, which seems a great slight to the noble watermelon so close to National (US) Watermelon Day, and especially to the culinary delight known as watermelon steak, also called watermelon steak "au poivre" in some locales among the well to do. Shall we merge bacon into pig? Not without the internet exploding! Or steak into beef? What about steak au poivre itself? Or grilled pizza, deep-fried pizza and deep-fried Mars bar? Nay, whether watermelon steak is sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article is a question that requires investigation. Many thousands have read this article (and the one on the Persian wikipedia) without complaint since its creation close to eight years ago, and also since I rejected a prod almost four years ago. I believe that watermelon steak does cross the threshold into notability; I don't discount the argument that a merge may be an appropriate outcome as well. But, in all events, do not prejudge watermelon steak, carnivores.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into Watermelon It's a different presentation of the fruit than the uncooked version, so it's at least worth noting in the Watermelon article. (COI notice: I took the photo posted on Commons, but I can't tell you how it tastes as that would be original research). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a Fish steak article, so by the same token, in my opinion, it would be sensible to have a Fried fruit or Fruit preparation or some such article (and note Dried fruit). Anarchangel (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles exist. Some are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Fish steak isn't particularly good, IMO. Whether or not "fish steak" (a particular cut of fish) is notable really doesn't say whether this method of cooking a fruit is notable. As for dried fruit -- whose goodness, badness or ugliness is a whole other kettle of fish -- note that we do not have dried watermelon or grilled fruit. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:02, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into watermelon, perhaps under sub-section Watermelon Recipes/ Watermelon Dishes / Cooking with Watermelon. No way Watermelon Steak needs an article of its own. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Watermelon - Doesn't require a standalone article. United States Man (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete in the nomination, just some bizarre WP:OSE red links. Is the nominator seriously saying that grilled beef steak is not notable too? Andrew (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying there is not sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to write a reasonably detailed article on this subject. If grilled watermelon/grilled watermelon steak/watermelon steak (or, as suggested above, watermelon steak tartare...) is notable, we need significant coverage in reliable sources to maintain a separate article. Otherwise, we have a sentence or two for Watermelon and a redirect. (Grilled beefsteak? Steak is the main article, with daughter articles for various cuts of beef. I am unaware of any notable cuts of watermelon. The handful of steak cuts I checked did not seem to have daughter articles for various cooking methods for the individual cuts. Instead, they have links for "grilling" and "broiling" (both leading to Grilling).) - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and strong oppose to merging, sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify the stub. A correct target for merging would be an article about watermelon-based dishes, merging this stub into the watermelon article would be in my view a book-case of undue weight. Cavarrone 12:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested merging all of the cookbook material to Watermelon. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. I don't see sufficient material here to in any way create a neutrality problem (as your link to WP:UNDUE seem to imply). Most editors commenting here seem to be seeing a couple of sentences. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a couple of sentences about "Watermelon steak", at least in the Watermelon article's current form, would be undue weight as well (no apparent reason to cover this specific dish against others). This merging proposal is actually nonsense IMHO, typical patch worse than the hole. Cavarrone 16:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -i see no reason for all of this debate. This subject should at best be merged into the Watermelon article under various ways to prepare or uses for watermelon. sorry guys but this seems a no-brainer to me.--Canyouhearmenow 12:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. I am opposed to a merge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeocharinus[edit]

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

Should be written by some expert with proper references Sulaimandaud (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was 34 minutes old when you nominated it for deletion. It is a valid encyclopedic topic. Why don't you ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arthropods instead of deletion attempts? It would be more constructive. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like a great start on an article that others can build on. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This genus has been discussed in published books and journal articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even check Google Scholar? Seems sufficiently notable to me--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly notable subject; totally invalid deletion criterion. WP:TROUT for the nom. -- 101.117.88.7 (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)— 101.117.88.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Not sure why this was nominated. Clearly notable - article just needs work. SNOW KEEP now. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:43, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Warfighter Association[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. The us-wa.org site seems to be down and I can't find reliable sources, so fails GNG IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the only link that came up when I clicked "news" was the article itself...I'd say it's a goner. Intothat darkness 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely any Ghits and most are WP mirrors. So, I have found insufficient reliable sources about the organisation to show its notability. BethNaught (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Uniques (Florida band)[edit]

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

Non notable band that has didnt release an album. The band had 2 notable members but heir pages don't even mention The Uniques. Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "They were basically a cover band that played at dances and parties." They had enough time since 1962 to become notable but they couldn't. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Frmorrison (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK and no other reason - if the article is to believed, this band is notable per WP:MUSICBIO#C6.--Laun chba ller 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems clearly not to be notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:54, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected kernel mode trap[edit]

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

Way too technical, WP:NOTMANUAL Gbawden (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 15:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete: this kind of topics is indeed excluded from scope of Wikipedia per WP:NOTMANUAL. Initially I wanted to propose merging into Blue Screen of Death, but the material itself turns out to be non-encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per WP:NOTMANUAL. I don't mind highly technical articles, and I do think articles on general classes of errors have a place (e.g., Segmentation fault), but this error is specific to a few versions of one operating system, and without WP:RS placing it in some larger context, we're better off without it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:08, 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 02:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ommelanderwijk Man[edit]

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

There are no sources to establish an entity by this name. There have been numerous corpses found preserved by various means, not unlike Ötzi. The cited sources mention many corpses but none mention this town. This is a likely WP:HOAX. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources found on searching; likely WP:HOAX. -- 101.117.0.208 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this is not a hoax, the article suggests that there are lots of bodies found of people dating to this general time and place. No reason given for an article on this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only appears to exist in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 02:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two legitimate entries, so WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate is an offshoot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbia (disambiguation). I've located a few entries which might be included on this dab page (Slovakia during World War II, Slovak Soviet Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic), but it's questionable if they would be legitimate (I'd say "no", therefore "delete"). I left a notice at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Historical polities in hope of a wider input. No such user (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both the constituency and the sports teams are valid entries, in addition to the primary topic, so this is a worthwhile dab page. PamD 12:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport teams are decisively not valid entries. Please let's not open that can of worms. Each country has up to a hundred national teams in various sports, sexes and age categories, and they have a regular naming convention in wikipedia: [[<Country> <Men's/Women's> National <Sport> team]]. They are explicitly discouraged by WP:PTM: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. (bold mine). No such user (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Slovak Republic has its own dab page: Slovak Republic (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if new entries aren't found. Disambiguation pages are for different topics who coincidentally have the same name. It is not for subtopics, and that is all that's listed here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This is one that easily gets my vote. The disambiguation page is a highly useful tool. Solvakia can be a confusing term / word for people not knowing exactly what it can stand for. And this aids in navigation as well. Did you know that there is a short 2009 film called Slovakia and an episode of TV series A Place in the Sun is called Slovakia ? There is also a TV series called A Place in Slovakia (Starman005 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I forgot to add that there is some producer called Magic Seven Slovakia and an group called 3 Run Slovakia. What's the odds of a group called lovakia turning up one day ? I'd sat it would be likely. (Starman005 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Reply. Since none of these have articles or mentions in articles (and several are partial title matches), where exactly is the navigational value? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unless someone can prove the value of this article I do not see a purpose or plan.--Canyouhearmenow 12:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use hatnote instead My understanding of DAB pages is that they contain all articles with the same name; thus the sports team is not a legitimate entry, nor is the Eurovision thing. The parliamentary constituency is legitimate, but it is the only one (so far); so it can be dealt with using a hatnote. If more legitimate articles crop up, recreating the page is easy. WP:TOOSOON was written with slightly different intent, but similar reasoning would apply here, I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bipartite realization algorithm[edit]

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

Probably WP:OR: describes an algorithm "was never been published in a scientific paper", and indeed I haven't been able to find this algorithm in GScholar. Unless someone can come up with a good reference, I suggest we delete this article. (I've already asked the author for a reference, but got no reply.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable unpublished WP:OR. -- 101.117.0.208 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this were published, there are big chunks of missing information here: what is the running time of this method, why would one want to do it this way instead of using the obvious network flow formulation, and more importantly, why is realizing bipartite graphical degree sequences a useful thing to do? But without publications, there is nothing to use as a source for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only GHits are Wikipedia and mirrors, and the article stating that it hasn't been published makes this an easy decision. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 06:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Group[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up only routine coverage of the company's press releases. Msnicki (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep [11] It is one of largest groups in India headed by Kishore Biyani. It owns well-known brands like Big Bazaar. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you've given is to a Google search, not to any specific source. Setting aside that WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid, it appears that all the coverage turned up by that search is merely routine coverage of the company's press releases. Can you point to any specific sources you believe clear the hurdle as reliable, independent and secondary and which address the subject in detail as required by our guidelines? Msnicki (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep [12] [13] [14] [15] Providing strong reliable source supporting the article's authenticity and notability. Future Group is a major retail player and FMCG manufacturer of India and is highly notable . The article has now been improved enough and citation added. Request to recheck and close this discussion and remove AFD template from the page.-- Sahil 12:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your first link is on the futuregroup.in website and is clearly WP:PRIMARY. Your second link appears to be routine coverage of the opening of a new location. Your fourth link is a trivial mention of Future Group as one of several retail chains invited to send an executive to meet with secretaries the ministries of consumer affairs and agriculture to talk about price inflation. Your third link might contribute to notability but even it is very, very weak, reporting that on a visit to Nagpur, the chairman of Future Group said they were planning to build some kiosks. I still don't find this to be sufficient to establish notability. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Msnicki. Contrary to your opinions ,My first link is the official website of futuregroup where you can find stuffs like press releases, subsidiary company info, group websites , annual reports etc. for thorough verification of the article. My second link is of a list of coverages by a major newspaper published to signify positive approach of a company that could affect overall retail stock market conditions. My fourth link [actually fifth] is a mention of Future Group as one of the several leading chains invited by the current Indian Government to discuss on price rise with key government officials. Do note how the newspapers has mentioned only the familiar names in their heading and para to imply the leaders in retails :) . My third-last link reports the planned expansion of the company with a new business approached and published by a major business newspaper to notify market shareholders . In case you find it weak , we can look into other links like the 3rd one about an INR 175 Cr ($35 million approx) purchase or the 8th link about their plans for an INR 15000 cr revenue ($2.4 billion approx). I also have added more materials to the article with references to strengthen the material -- Sahil 13:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs)

I think you may misunderstand how notability (which is all we consider at AfD) is determined. Per WP:GNG, we require WP:SECONDARY sources to establish notability. The company website is WP:PRIMARY and is unhelpful in establishing notability. Fundamentally, you cannot make yourself notable just by writing about yourself. It is also not enough that a subject seem notable. Others not connected to the subject must actually take note, they must do in reliable sources and they must offer their own secondary analysis. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, we exclude trivial coverage including "routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and] quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources", meaning your other links are also unhelpful. Per WP:BIGNUMBER, we do not base notability on arbitrary size, e.g., revenues. Finally, notability is not WP:INHERITED, meaning that just because the subject owns or controls some notable brands, does not make the subject notable. Again, the only thing that matters is whether there are multiple reliable independent secondary sources on the subject. Those sources do not appear to exist. Msnicki (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh , I guess we are not getting into a conclusion here ; it's time we include more experts here to solve this up. I have put this up for discussion in the Admins Noticeboard and you can check it out here . Also , please let me clarify that i have not added company website links to verify is notability (cuz that would be wayyy stupid) , but to verify the existence of its operating companies , its published annual report (where you can see its net income/ profit and loss statement and assets) and press releases. For notability ,I have posted in enough links from , as i have said before , multiple major newspapers where they are (mostly) core reason for the article than merely a passing mention. Also, as much as i can see (not an admin), this article is not self published (they dont need to , considering their popularity), And me , i am just another gentleuser who came across to hand over justice to an innocent article :D ! Good Day --Sahil 05:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SahilSahadevan (talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability - The subject have significant coverage (see here, see here, see here], see here see here) in the public domain but the article need some clean-up and cite styling. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 07:15, 25 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, the panda ₯’ 08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a mess with poor referencing, but this is a major company which has significant coverage in books (including textbooks) where it is consistently described as India's largest retail group, e.g:

• Getting China and India Right: Strategies for Leveraging the World's Fastest Growing Economies for Global Advantage (John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

• Rural Marketing: Text And Cases (Pearson Education, 2011)

• Fundamentals Of Retailing (McGraw-Hill Education, 2009)

• Supply Chain Management for Retailing (McGraw-Hill Education, 2010)

Doesn't anyone ever think to use Google Books in these discussions (and for referencing articles) instead of random internet "hits"? Books by academic publishers are a far better indication of the lasting significance of a subject. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS The following book by a major Indian academic publisher (Vikas) is very useful for referencing the company's history and subsidiaries:

• India Business Yearbook 2009, pp. 154–156

The following feature articles are useful re the major re-structuring of the company which began in 2012 after its financial crisis in 2009–2010 and has been widely covered in the Indian financial press. Note that these are not press-release based and are from notable publications:

• Masoom Gupte (23 June 2014). "Method in the madness", Business Standard.

• Samar Srivastava (18 June 2012). "The Big Future Group Sale". Forbes (India) (also appeared in the print edition of the magazine)

• Samar Srivastava (6 September 2010). "Kishore Biyani is Back From the Brink". Forbes (India) (also appeared in the print edition of the magazine)

Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major retail chain whose notability is clear. Andrew (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be KEEP without further ado as a SNOW KEEP. This nomination should not have been made. A quick Google search and Google News search shows this firm is, without a doubt, notable passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Cutest Penguin above. Carrite (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Easily passes WP:GNG, although it needs a massive clean up and has a somewhat trivial embedded list. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anil Kumar[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Improvement tags and then prod removed by creator (a WP:SPA whose username indicates a possible WP:COI). Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of notability not yet sufficient. Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: even this article fails WP:PROF. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - horrid sourcing. The subject doesn't pass any part of the "Prof test". It's not the quantity of patents one has gained (secured often as a tax write-off for an employer), but the quality of inventions that matter, for notability. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Anil Kumar's academic work is widely known [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] in academia. At least 30 more links can be found if one searches well. Technology (BOD biosensor) developed by him and his team in the market which is patented and protected by his patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.226.249 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources, not the secondary sources that are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Please visit http://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=8aPHDacAAAAJ&hl=en which is the platform of all secondary sources of his notability. One has to understand that notability in academics and other areas is quite different and can't be measured by same parameters Academic work of Anil Kumar has received 282 citations so far from other researchers/scientists which account to 10 h-index to his credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilcbt (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts (per the Google scholar link provided by Anilcbt – thanks!) are too low to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 and no other sign of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response and keep what about his prolific inventorship in number of US and European patents, forget other patents in India or other countries. You can find him in databases like USPTO and EPO. He is inventor in 10 granted US patents (please note 'granted' not filed) which is very rare at the age of 39. Can anyone tell the name of some other inventor who credits 10 granted US patents below the age of 40 in current times in India or abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.61.227 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twentyfive To 9[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. They haven't released an album, so can't meet WP:BAND. The only source I can find is their myspace page, so fail GNG Gbawden (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no reliable and independent information about the band. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A myspace source is WP:PRIMARY], because they made it. They fail WP:BAND also. It doesn't pass WP:GNG, but I think you get it by now.
Delete as non notable band, No evidence of notability beyond Myspace. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TW 50k Ultra[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Non notable IMO - fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many such events around the world, many of which receive little beyond local coverage. There is no claim of notability here and I found no coverage in reliable sources on Google or Highbeam. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AVRillo[edit]

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

Claims awards; so A7 may not be applicable. I can't find any reliable sources. —teb728 t c 06:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced and poorly formatted. I couldn't find a single reliable source. May violate Wikipedia:OR (May also be self-published)?—gargleafg (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional bs. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced article from a WP:SPA. No evidence found that this firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amora (recording artist)[edit]

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

Difficult to tell through all the possibly WP:COI promotion but looks like a CDBaby artist falling short of WP:NMUSIC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The multiple names is confusing, making it very hard to tell who this person is, or whether it is multiple persons; if we try to track it down using the multiple names, how can we be sure that we aren't referencing different individuals? Further, most of the current references are not reliable, such as CDBaby. Local papers such as Middletown News don't add much. Don't see in-depth coverage about who this amorphous person is or why she's notable, but I remain open-minded to switching if new, better, in-depth sources can be found, preferably which focus on an artist with one name please.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -As an entertainment historian I have access to restricted records and through my search I cannot find reliable sources to apply to this subject. Various public searches turn up very little and cdBaby cannot be used as a reliable source.--Canyouhearmenow 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lullaby (comics)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and I was unable to find anything on Google. This appears not to meet the general notability guideline. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some coverage in this book - you can see more in the GBooks search than you do in the page on the book, but it's impossible to say from this how significant it is. I didn't find any other coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Non-notable--Canyouhearmenow 12:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:ORG. No significant improvements nor coverage since first AFD in 2006. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation. I agree with the comments in the previous AfD that this is no more than a "vanity association" with no claim to notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Having notable board members doesn't make the organisation notable. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow House School[edit]

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

Deleted prod (by User:DGG). The school describes itself as "highly specialist" and says it has only 15 students. Normally I'd agree with WP:OUTCOMES, but an enrollment has me struggling to find notability. Raymie (t • c) 03:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Secondary schools are deemed notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article notes, this is a special school for children in need of its particular services. Such schools are always quite small. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kommandcore[edit]

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

Software product is discontinued, the company website is no more, the software was probably always non-notable anyway (Google books has a few references in general lists) and the article is written in a typical spammy advertising style U2fanboi (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - No evidence of notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only ever seems to have attracted minimal start-up coverage; no evidence found of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't know anyone that would use this nowadays. RWCasinoKid (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A larger number of ghits than I expected, but I'm not finding anything in the way of substantial coverage in WP:RS that could justify an article. Does not meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood (Finnish musician)[edit]

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

No indication of notability in the article as it stands, nor one independent reference. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite lack of references is very popular and significant. This area of knowledge (the Demoscene) is very barely covered by media but has a giant impact on world culture so it certainly deserves Wikipedia coverage. --ssr (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm a bit skeptical that this guy was that huge in the demoscene, because he was only a little kid in the 1980s and early 1990s. Without any reliable sources, we have nothing to say. I don't see any coverage at all in a Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he may be popular in the demoscene, there is virtually no mention of Elwood outside of his website (and this one). There is also no page for Elwood on the Finnish Wikipedia. Information might be more prevalent in Finnish resources. As it stands, Elwood doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. gargleafg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real coverage found. Without reliable sources available this cannot satisfy WP:V. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Marketing[edit]

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

The notability of this article is being contested, posting here to determine if this article should be kept or deleted. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company is about one year old and employs around 15 people. It's a small business. The article is referenced to the company's own web site, some local newspaper articles, press releases and other inferior sources. That they won a local business award is not significant enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.- Mr X 13:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The local coverage confirms existence, but no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to indicate that an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 NBA draft[edit]

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

delete- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The NBA hasn't officially named this event yet. I couldn't find a reliable reference confirming this event.

Robert4565 (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NBA Draft until the time comes. It will eventually be recreated if deleted. United States Man (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:V and WP:NOT. Salt until July 7, 2015 (two weeks after the possible event). Article can be created at draftspace if editors want to get started earlier. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But I vehemently disagree with the suggestion of salting until 2 weeks after the event takes place. There will be ample news about this event for several months before it happens - draft order will be announced, candidates will declare their eligibility, etc. I wouldn't salt at all on the first offense, but if it comes to that a logical timeframe would be near the end of the college season in March. Rikster2 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premature creation of an article about a future event. I also endorse the comment regarding "salting" and the timing of recreating this article immediately above by Rikster. "Salting" is probably unnecessary in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Dolpo police crackdown[edit]

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

Surely this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing in this article indicates long term notability Gbawden (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs some formatting etc. but notable subject through plenty of sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't read the last source listed, but other sources portray the admittedly tragic event as something worth mentioning, but not of lasting importance. Sadly, it's listed as merely one incident with respect to problems with the yarsagumba trade. --Larry (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In agreement with Larry and nominator. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and not of lasting importance. United States Man (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and the above !votes. Non-notable event of no enduring historical significance. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 02:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Napping (method of data collection)[edit]

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

This is what appears to be a research paper that is written in the first person. I'm not sure if there even is a category for deletion? Also there isn't much context. Gilded Snail (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found. Fails WP:GNG. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search yielded the following reliable sources, all secondary for napping:

Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science
Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training
Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization

Possibly less reliable but still secondary are [25] and [26]. Napping is also called projective mapping in the food sensory field. Multiple independent in-depth RS show that the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article has some problems: it is written with the casual we and has too many references to a J. Pagès, that might indicate some reference padding and/or a non-neutral POV. But fixing these problems is a matter of ordinary editing and not a reason for deletion. A notable topic and WP:SURMOUNTABLE article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't think to check for sources when I first tagged this for deletion. However, I have to notice that in a couple of the sources you provided, napping is referred to as "Napping®", seeming to suggest that the more vague term of projective mapping might work better. I found a source that mentions that napping was introduced by a specific person and is an application of projective mapping. Perhaps this could be merged with sensory analysis? Gilded Snail (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect WP:TNT. This article seems to be a very discrete promotion of the SensoMineR and FactoMineR software. Napping appears to be a registered trademark, see Giacalone, D.; Ribeiro, L.; Frost, M. (2013). "Consumer-based product profiling: application of partial napping® for sensory characterization of specialty beers by novices and experts". Journal of food product marketing. 19 (3): 201–218. doi:10.1080/10454446.2013.797946. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). (Even though it is part of the title, the Wikipedia guideline says that the ® symbol should not be used in the citation.) Napping is a brand name for an application of boolean set mapping. This current article needs WP:TNT, the only thing salvageable are some of the citations. There is not even a decent definition of the methodology. The methodology seems to be to ask the participants to subjectively arrange food/drink product icons on a two-dimensional surface according to perceived but unstated relationships and then to apply homographic analysis to the results. I guess the best redirect would be sensory analysis as suggested by editor Gilded Snail. I added the doi to a couple of citations in the article in order to make locating the abstracts easier. --Bejnar (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should napping deserve its own section within sensory analysis or would this just be a simple redirect? Since the presence of sources is making me think this could definitely have at least a brief description. Thoughts? Gilded Snail (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a small separate section. Other than the definition, I don't see much, unless one gets into the math which is really beyond the concept of "napping". --Bejnar (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I agree there are major issues with the current version (Aug 1 2014) of the article. Looks research-paper-ish; lacks context, such that someone who does not know much about consumer research would become quickly lost when trying to read this article. Further, the article title may be better switched to 'The Napping Procedure' or something better, since the term 'napping' is so close to more commonly understood mini-sleeps. There is a source here, plus this one, maybe this one too, plus others above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the current options seem to be "delete and redirect" or "keep and modify", is it worth keeping considering that napping is a brand name? I agree that there's definitely sources to back all this up and that the information herein is probably useful, but it might be easier to just condense it to a section in sensory analysis. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I acknowledge per the links provided that this is a real thing, but in the context of this article, I think that WP:TNT applies, as it's so far from being an encyclopædia article that it would be easier to start from scratch. I wouldn't have an objection to another article on the same topic being written, or content on this concept being incorporated in other articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- Unencyclopedic and no reliable sources per search.--Canyouhearmenow 12:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merged Any salvageable content from this page has been moved over to sensory analysis#effective testing. Will include the citations from this deletion discussion over in that section. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good practice to try to force a particular conclusion by merging material before consensus has been reached. In fact there is a consensus against merging before we are done; see WP:EDITATAFD the last point: Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes. Please undo this. I still stand by my keep recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid. Sorry about that. Gilded Snail (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. I have made the same mistake at previous AfDs. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Herat shooting[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, no reason why the murder of two people warrants an article. Step hen 01:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a routine crime that will likely not have an effect on society Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A typical case of NOTNEWS. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS. United States Man (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is what Wikinews is for. If this actually became a major international issue, then maybe we can have an article but this is exactly the type of article NEVENT warns against. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant enough; if it was, every double murder in the world would get an article. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, Perhaps this can be put on WikiNews?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fai zan 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor event, no encyclopedic significance. Unless new developments occur, it will also remain so. --hydrox (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a rare occurrence in Afghanistan. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 14:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to warrant its own article, at least until new and more encyclopedic developments are made. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS ...William 17:52, 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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount of Delta[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a Villa. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the villa or it's Nigerian prince owner. - Mr X 01:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than social media like Facebook, I found nothing -- certainly no reliable sources indicating notability. --Larry (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a promotional piece for a tourist resort in Nigeria. It has no coverage, as best I can find, in reliable independent secondary sources. I suspect a primary governmental source could be found, but I didn't find it. Fails WP:GNG. Probably speedily deleteable as CSD G-11 or as an A-7 organization. --Bejnar (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional article. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:35, 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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TruthKO[edit]

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

Autobiography of a non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No real coverage in reliable independent sources. A couple of singles in 2009 and work as a studio musician. Nothing here; nothing likely to be --Bejnar (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:MUSICBIO. There is nothing here that warrants inclusion. --Adam in MO Talk 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO. United States Man (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline speedy, but clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. ukexpat (talk) 12:31, 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Latifi[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Facebook, another Wikipedia, and a generic profile are hardly enough to establish notability. United States Man (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:31, 25 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) 09:10, 25 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) 14:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sian S. Rathore[edit]

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

Dubious sources and a Beachie Award does not appear to be a major literary prize. An upcoming poet who has yet to reach Wikipedia criteria for BLP notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BuzzFeed is a valuable information source about modern culture and should not be considered dubious. The Beachie Award is a yearly award presented by Beach Sloth. Beach Sloth is mentioned on the Alternative literature article (and other notable external articles about Alt Lit^[7]) and therefore is a notable source on this topic. Sian S. Rathore's ebooks have been referenced in UK Newspaper The Guardian.^[8] Manc1234 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ "SATW Awards". SATW Awards. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
^ "Contently - Tim Leffel portfolio". Contently. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
^ "Amazon Author page - Tim Leffel". Amazon. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
^ "TBEX Speakers". TBEX Conference. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
^ "SATW Awards". SATW Awards. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
^ http://www.timleffel.com/travelbooks.htm
^ http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/17603/1/the-da-zed-guide-to-alt-lit
^ http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/sep/12/e-literature-novels

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

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

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

Delete. A trivial mention in The Guardian is not enough. We need significant coverage, like a full-length review or career retrospective. Blogs don't help much, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rathore received full-length reviews of Softcore Cloudstep (2013) in literary magazine 3:AM Magazine^[1], as well as Sabotage Reviews^[2] and Look How Prodigal.^[3] Manc1234 (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/3am-salutes-sian-s-rathore/
^ http://sabotagereviews.com/2013/12/11/softcorecloudstep-by-sian-s-rathore/
^ http://lookhowprodigal.tumblr.com/post/52837007312/softcore-cloudstep-by-sian-s-rathore

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think NinjaRobotPirate summarized it correctly. Rathore may very well be up and coming -- but hasn't yet arrived. This is reflected in the lack of coverage in major publications. --Larry (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agreed with NinjaRobotPirate, not enough coverage as of yet. United States Man (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Wikipedia articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sabotage can't be a reliable source because it invites contributions from the public; Look How Prodigal also falls short because (as far as I can tell at least) it's just someone's Tumblr. The Guardian obviously is reliable, but the single sentence of coverage isn't significant, and Buzzfeed might be both but the link doesn't work. I'd be happy to accept the 3:AM Magazine piece as reliable and significant, but we need multiple sources – one isn't enough. As others above have alluded to, it looks like Rathore might well be notable in time, but right now there hasn't been enough written about her to support an encyclopaedia article – this predicament is described at Wikipedia: Too soon. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:22, 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.

[Comodo-1] Antivirus, Comodo. "Comodo". https://www.comodo.com/. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

[2] "SATW Awards". SATW Awards. Retrieved 26 July 2014.

[3] "Contently - Tim Leffel portfolio". Contently. Retrieved 26 July 2014.

[4] "Amazon Author page - Tim Leffel". Amazon. Retrieved 26 July 2014.

[5] "TBEX Speakers". TBEX Conference. Retrieved 26 July 2014.

[6] "SATW Awards". SATW Awards. Retrieved 26 July 2014.

[7] ttp://www.timleffel.com/travelbooks.htm

[8] ttp://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/17603/1/the-da-zed-guide-to-alt-lit

[9] ttp://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/sep/12/e-literature-novels

[10] ttp://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/3am-salutes-sian-s-rathore/

[11] ttp://sabotagereviews.com/2013/12/11/softcorecloudstep-by-sian-s-rathore/

[12] ttp://lookhowprodigal.tumblr.com/post/52837007312/softcore-cloudstep-by-sian-s-rathore

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]