Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 July 30 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog Bernhard Zoransky[edit]

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

Hoax (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/29. Juli 2014#Bernhard Zoransky (SLA) for German discussion, ending with speedy deletion, after this Article was translated into German) Noebse (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This should not be here for discussion if it is clearly a hoax. It should be speedy-deleted. I see no evidence that this is a hoax. Can you clarify? I looked at the lengthy German discussion you linked (using Google Translate :P), and it doesn't appear to me that there was a hoax confirmed, just suspicion, though the admin (if I am reading correctly) deleted the article for "nonsense/vandalism." Nothing I found in that discussion or on the deleted article page indicated speedy-deletion from the German WP either, just deletion. (Of course my reading of that is based on the limited translation from Google.) As there had been previous talk about the German article suffering from a poor translation from this English article, I wonder if that meant nonsense, as in the language was not comprehensible due to a bad translation, which is not sufficient criteria for speedy deletion here. (I don't believe being a member of nobility is enough for notability, but that's a different discussion.) Can you give us more to go on? Dcs002 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy deleted on the German Wikipedia.
The sources do not indicate this person had the title of a Herzog (duke). Indeed the google books uploaded (Philip Van Ness Myers (15 June 1893). Introduction to Prussian History: A Textbook for High Schools, Seminaries, and Colleges (German). Bender Books USA. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-4993-6557-3.

Kaspar, Johann Z. Die Zoransky Familie. ISBN 0692213872.) are selfpublished and the ISBN numbers do not suit the year of publication. --GDEA (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not support a hoax. It only supports lack of RS to support claims of importance. We should not accuse people of dishonesty because their sources do not support their claims. (However, as this is an English article, I think the English word "Duke" should be used. I thought Herzog was part of his name.) This is a very new article. Has anybody offered help to the creator, or tried to improve it as an alternative to deletion? I think this discussion is far too hasty, and a hoax (the reason given in this nomination for deletion) is certainly not supported by any evidence that I see, even if the sources do not say he was a herzog. Also, remember the discussion for the German article concerned only the German article, not this one, and it is not binding or conclusive evidence in itself. Notability has not been supported. Ok. But that does not mean the creator of this article lied or perpetrated a hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain hints that this articles is a fake because of historial inaccuracies that should not occur in a reliable article. Herzog Bernhard Zoransky should have remained catholic during the Kulturkampf (1871-1878), although he died 1849, more than twenty years before.
The inline reference for the Kulturkampf, Frankenberg's Prussia: A Guide To Lost Prussian Nobility by Franz W Frankenberg. Published 1858, is dated 13 years before the Kulturkampf happened. It is very short book because it only contains 36 page.
The book is self-published under the platform reatespace.com of amazon.com. Nobody checks whether this book is an authentic reprint of a historic book or pure invention.
One book which is given as source in this article, "Johann Wilhelm: Herzog Martin V. Zoransky has got an "ISBN 1499310390" and is claimed to be published in Germany in 1918. There neither an entry for this book nor for the author, the ISBN or Zoransky in online catalogue of the German National Library, which collects all books having been published in Germany. The precessor for the "ISBN", the "SBN"-number was introduced in 1966, the ISBN in 1970. --GDEA (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also take into consideration Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. --Noebse (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this looks very suspicious. The case has not yet been proven, but from multiple angles, it looks suspicious. But this AfD must be evaluated through this process on its own, as the falsehood of sources and the accusation of sockpuppetry are allegations, not proven, and we are not admins who can impose sanctions for such things. We are here to evaluate this article as an AfD. The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion. I doubt the subject is notable though, and that would be a reason to delete under this process. Dcs002 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for details please check my reasoning on Herzog Martin V. Zoransky below, that basically applies to all Zoranskies. All Zoransky-articles are cross-related to each other, the relevance of each article in terms of the encyclopedia was based on the argument that one Zoransky was rfelated to another Zoransky, who was allegedly nobility (Martin V. Zoransky), but the given documents were a hoax and made up. In case of a later Zoransky (forgot which one ... apparentlie died in 1988) his relevance was based on the claim that his ancestor (Martin V. Zoransky) was Prussian nobility, but there was no proof of that. Also he was apparently the grandfather of T.S. Threston, and was meant to be relevant because of that, but T.S. Threston herself does not show as much to justify a biographicle article. All those articles, including all on the Threston family and the Zoranskies, had been initiated by a number of accounts that had been established in July 2014 and were only working on those articles related to Threstons and Zoranskies. All those accounts are currently undergoing an inquiry regarding the suspicion of sockpuppetry. Also the Coat of Arms of the Zoransky Family that has been uploaded to Wiki-Commons is facing an AfD right now. LagondaDK (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the sockpuppet investigation is in progress, but it has not come to a conclusion. I see many suspicious coincidences, but what is lacking is anything beyond the coincidences - the timing and the use of those accounts - to indicate a nefarious motive. Allegations and investigation for sockpuppetry do not constitute evidence of sockpuppetry. (Lack of RS does not establish motive either.) Nothing is yet conclusive except the German deletion, and that was about the German article. I think we should delete this article for a more clearly substantiated reason, like lack of notability, or even criterion #7 in WP:DEL#REASON, part of the deletion policy. (It could be argued that a thorough attempt has been made to source the topic and found insufficient evidence.) I would support that, but I cannot support a conclusion that this is a hoax simply because others are investigating sockpuppetry, there is poor or even inappropriate sourcing, or a German article was deleted, speedy or otherwise. This discussion is about this article alone, and whether this article should be deleted because it is a hoax.
Embarrassing correction: I said "The reason given is "hoax," and that is not a reason for AfD, but for speedy-deletion." Hoax clearly IS a reason for deletion through this policy, regardless of the result of a speedy-deletion request. My bad! Dcs002 (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear evidence that this is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would !vote to delete this article based on lack of notability, but I do not want to !vote for the conclusion that this is a hoax. I am concerned that a consensus here, which would include my own !vote to delete, would then be used somewhere else to say we declared this article a hoax. I can't be a part of that kind of consensus. Can we delete for non-notability or lack of evidence without having to call this a hoax? Dcs002 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could easily delete all those Articles related to the Zoransky-Clan (Bernhard, Martin and others), as well as articles of the Threston-Clan, including the main article on the alleged author (and "philantropist") T.R. Threston by arguing that 1) the sources used are questionable (old books using ISBN that did not exist before 1970, new books apparently published 2014 using a ten digit ISBN that was not used any more after 2007), if you'd decide to go easy on the authors you might give them time to raise the quality of the articles. 2) you could delete all those articles because of a lack of relevance, because after being stripped of unreliable sources that turned out to be fake (please check here for details), there should not be much data left that justify an article. Also the article on T.R. Threston could be deleted due to a lack of relevance of that person, because her relevance is highly based on the relevance of those Zoransky and Threston people who are themselves not as relevant. ... If they ever existed at all! That would be the easy way out, but I personally believe it would be for the better if we could make a stand and dig out that snakepit! Lets get to the bottom of it. LagondaDK (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't pretend to understand why, any more than Dcs002, but the sources that actually mention Bernhard are recently self-published books that have been back-dated on Google Books to make them look older. This is absolutely a hoax. Choess (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not as a hoax then at least under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm, whose intention seems to have been to create a great number of hoaxes based on hoaxish, quickly created external sources. This was an elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sockpuppet investigation is concluded, and I am now comfortable !voting for deletion based on the conclusion of that investigation. It looked suspicious from the start, I know, but it's a serious allegation, and I think we need to proceed with caution before accusing someone or concluding someone did something so dishonest. I am glad that investigation concluded before this discussion was closed, and I hope I have played devil's advocate well. I feel no joy about this at all, but it is the right thing to do, and I agree all similar articles by the same sock farm should be deleted as well. Thank you to those of you who investigated this and put such effort into protecting our integrity! Dcs002 (talk) 04:41, 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 deckertalk 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph C. Zoransky[edit]

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

not notable person Noebse (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability presented. Linked source simply says he was "employed" by Sears in Wilkes-Barre, not that he was an "executive". Choess (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a claim of importance or significance. He is clearly described as an American, and no title of nobility is claimed in the article, though someone added a European noble tag. It may not be clear whether this is a hoax (there was a previous request for speedy-deletion that was denied, which alleged this article was a hoax.), but based on WP:A7 it might still be eligible for speedy deletion. Still, as it is so new I'd hate for that to be applied. Has anyone tried to help the page creator with this?
Noebse, I don't like it when the only action someone has done on an article is nominating it for deletion, especially with no discussion on the article's talk page. The first action should be to try to help, not delete. WP:DEL-CONTENT says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." From what I can tell, the only contributions you have made here since 2012 has been to nominate pages for deletion or speedy-deletion. You have to know what that looks like.
Given the Herzog Bernhard Zoransky AfD discussion, I wonder if this might have more to do with a well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements. Suggesting that either article is a hoax is unwarranted as far as I can tell. But in the end, it seems this article is likely not about a notable subject, so delete. Dcs002 (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, but I do not like accounts which spam irrelevant articles by creating a walled garden. --Noebse (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to assume good faith at first, but from the German deletion discussion it seems that sources were actively faked. Also, this is part of a larger "walled garden" of articles, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dcs002 & Noebse: You are referring to User:GenieGeschichte when speaking about the "well intentioned editor who doesn't understand notability requirements"? It might look like that in this case, but considering the two other "Zoranskies" it seems evident to me, that the "History Genius" put a lot of effort to create a hoax to fool Wikipedia. No way, that that happened unintentionally!--Susumu at (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a hoax, but that is not our mission here. Hoaxes should be speedy-deleted by admins, not through this process. We can determine notability and whether the sources are sufficient, but calling the creator a liar is in itself an attack, and we should use all restraint. On its own, I think this article is about a non-notable subject. I think that is sufficient reason to delete. Dcs002 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for details please see my contributions to Bernhard Zoransky and Martin V. Zoransky AfD above and below. The resoning applies to all Zoransky articles. LagondaDK (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dcs002: Some IP suggested all three articles for speedy-deletion, but this was reverted by JohnCD, because it was a not to obvious hoax. But it is still a hoax. The German Afd-discussion proved this by all means. This "Contributer" faked (and uploaded to google-books) a self-published "German source" for "reference", in which he included a bad, babelfish-like German translation of his English WP-Articles. I think this is proof enough for bad intentions.--Susumu at (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments. I still don't think we are justified in calling this a hoax though. My standard for that is maybe higher than that of most people (though the admins who rejected the speedy-deletes seem to have a higher standard as well - it wasn't obvious to them, and if it's not obvious, I think we should refrain from such labels). However, my original !vote stands. In my first post in this discussion, I !voted to delete based on lack of notability (and no apparent claim of importance or significance), which is the reason given for this proposed deletion. I also see the main editors of the article haven't attempted to improve the article and haven't participated yet in this discussion. Dcs002 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why a person would put so much effort into articles such as these, which are about minor nobles at best, as a hoax. No one is contesting whether the subjects of these articles were real, only the claimed nobility and the reliability of the sources. Sure, they could be the editor's ancestors, but that is a very weak motive for perpetrating an outright hoax. (No one accepts WP articles as a RS, not even WP.) It is a more reasonable motive for trying to get articles for non-notable subjects, but that is different from perpetrating an outright hoax. Dcs002 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcs002: well, at first sight I just belived it was a try to make fun out of the wikipedia and descrediting it. There ARE people out there, who put some efford in it just for fun ore meniace. But after reading LagondaDK (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston it might as well be an infamouse try of Viral marketing to promote the book mentioned there! Consider what happens when medias go for the news "Wikipedia fooled by Novelist", it might get really profitable for the selling numbers of the book, can't it?--Susumu at (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is beginning to remind me of the fake pirate article incident, but with quite possibly more base motives. I have now been directly attacked for having nominated the article on T.R. Threston for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this at AFD at all. The article basically says that he grew up, went to college, got a job, and got married. He had a life. Nothing particularly notable about it at all. This should have been speedied under WP:CSD#A7. It probably also qualifies under WP:CSD#G5 as having been created by a member of this sock farm. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussions of sockpuppetry, decisions elsewhere about German articles... Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven." I see nothing proven, but again, my !vote is to delete based on non-notability, and like WikiDan61says, maybe even speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7. We agree on deletion, maybe even speedy deletion, for the reason given in the nomination for deletion, but I do not want this to be a consensus that this was a hoax or sockpuppetry, which is being investigated elsewhere and outside the scope of our task here, IMO. I disagree that either has been substantiated here, and I don't see why it's necessary to expand this AfD discussion to include such allegations when they are not necessary or part of the proposed reasons for deletion. What does that serve? We seem to have enough to agree on a deletion under GNG and A7, and I think we should do so, and let the sockpuppetry investigation do its job. It looks like that's happening, but the investigation is not complete. I think the scope of our discussion should be limited to this article and whether it should be deleted for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion, and we all seem to be in agreement. Delete. Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' Sockpuppetry investigation complete. Again, delete (!voted above), and I'm now ok with deleting for hoax based on that investigation. Dcs002 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
about Maybe it's only my bad Google translation of the German article, but what I read there is still along the lines of "it makes sense that this is bogus" rather than "this is proven.": It was in the end generally considered proven, that it was fake. (I am a German native speaker, even if some people from Germany might disagree in that.) And it was ended there with SLA (=Schnelllöschantrag, equal to speedy-deletion). If you go on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then klick on the "Deutsch" interwiki you will get conformation for that. Anyway, I think by now WP:snow should apply here.--Susumu (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did not know what SLA meant, though I did wonder. With the sockpuppetry case closed, I suppose this will all be over very quickly - all related pages. Dcs002 (talk) 11:06, 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Mission School[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - contains what, in Indian schools, is a high school. I have sliced out a significant amount of advertising and/or hype. What remains appears to be factual. Sure the article still needs much cleanup and sourcing work but AFD is not for this. We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local and/or hardcopy sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The systematic bias is that high school are kept in the romantic believe that dreaming about sources is just as good as giving them. The Banner talk 01:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are hard to gather as the school is one of the remotest area in the country with minimal exposure to the online world. More sources will be added later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.212.96.223 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we be sure this school exists? Jacona (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. No true reason given for deletion. "advertising" is a ridiculous reason to delete a school article and it's easy enough to remove anything that's over-promotional. It's time that editors cleaned up articles as a first option instead of nominating them for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is time editors start judging articles on face value instead of using a result (common outcomes) as an argument. There is no policy to keep schools at all. The Banner talk 09:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No policy, but consensus, which is what the outcomes illustrate. This discussion has been had endlessly and the conclusion is always the same - secondary school articles are kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not even consensus, just a very loud group of people. The Banner talk 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, clear consensus. Note that The Banner is a member of the rather bitter minority who have always disagreed with the consensus and like to claim that the majority who agree with it are just louder and his group are actually in the right. I'm not sure what he thinks a consensus actually means, because to me it means that most editors who express an opinion agree with it. Do most editors on Wikipedia agree with it? Who knows? Do most editors on Wikipedia agree with any consensus here? Who knows? We can only possibly take the opinions of the people who actually contribute to discussions, not the silent majority who don't bother. If we took "consensus" to mean "a majority of people who contribute to Wikipedia agree with it" then we'd never, ever, in a million years, have any consensus on anything, ever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I graduated my school days from this school. I know it exist, but it is difficult to get references or sources due to the lack of information technology in NE regions of India. But, written source is not the only reliable information. For example, we do not need any references to know that a Ketchup is from tomato; it comes naturally. My main point is that references will build up slowly as we are lacking in internet facilities in our areas. It is of course in a remote area. However, people in remote areas also need a good education. So, we are very thankful for having a good school like this. From my opinion, wikipedia will become richer in knowledge if you will be able to not delete this from your site. Eventually, it will be a blessing for our regions to have our esteemed school to be exposed in this way. Please don't delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hriatacherput (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Just to clarify -- Are you the same new editor who !voted as an IP above, with the same remoteness concern? Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The answer is yes and no. First of all, yes i am from the same remote area called Champhai. Like i said, i used to attend my my class 3 and class 4 standard during 1998 and 1999 in the mentioned school i.e. Bethel Mission School. Secondly, i am not the editor about the school here in wikipedia. However, the editor is my good friend and he informed me about this and he said there is lack of enough sources. So, i helped him in searching sources, but is very limited. I hope you understand the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hriatacherput (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Strike as per WP:AfD guidelines. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:56, 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 keep. Of note is that the nominator changed their !vote (the nomination) to merge in a comment in the discussion. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Tubman Grave[edit]

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

No indication that this may meet WP:GNG as both sources are routine databases. Launchballer 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be withdrawing this. Not only would withdrawal have no effect due to the existence of non-keep votes (including one merge vote - see below), your statement that two sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG is, to my mind, complete bollocks since I have been discussed thoroughly in two sources and mentioned in others (see my userpage) and you will notice that, rightly or wrongly, I do not have an article. --Launchballer 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listing on the NRHP is indicative of notability, and the nomination form is not a "routine database" but a document specially prepared to explain the history and significance of the site. Additional sources can be found in the bibliography of this document. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SNOW KEEP. [16]--Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Harriet Tubman There's no doubt that as an NHRP site this enjoys some degree of notability; the article makes clear, however, that that notability derives entirely from her fame. And even in its extreme brevity, it still comes across as rather padded. It makes much more sense as a couple of sentences and an infobox in her article. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Changing my vote, as nominator, to merge.--Launchballer 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An NRHP listing means that the documentation that establishes notability is out there to be retrieved although it may be off line. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it turns out this was used as a citation for the grave but was only the website's mainpage, therefore it can't be counted as coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only one brief mention within a list, that page isn't sufficient coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NPOL does not automatically make city councillors notable, not even from a big city like Manchester. In the absence of reliable sources going beyond a passing mention, notability has not been established. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ashley[edit]

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

This article should be deleted. It was never anything more than a stub, and the subject isn't even a member of the council anymore since he lost his seat in 2011. Totally fails notability. 88.104.6.198 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that he isn't in office anymore is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of current officeholders — so once a politician has been properly established as passing WP:NPOL, they are notable not only for the duration of their term in office, but forever. And as a councillor in Manchester, one of the largest and most internationally famous cities in England, he does qualify for a presumption of notability under NPOL — he wouldn't get to keep the article if the sourcing can never actually get any better than this, granted, but he's entitled to a chance for the sourcing to improve. So the article should be flagged for {{refimprove}}, and should certainly be reconsidered for deletion in due time if no refimprovement actually results from that — but for the moment the deletion rationale is invalid and the article should therefore be kept. And a propos of nothing, if this is a third nomination then where are the first two? Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One trivial ref. Local councillor of no note. Google returns news articles on his work etc. But it is of the kind that fails WP Politician because its just local stuff. Nothing to indicate he passes GNG either. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being a councillor in Manchester does not make a person as notable as Manchester itself. Local councillors are rarely notable enough to have article pages of their own and should either be included in list articles as a group or articles about their local area. As he is no longer a councillor, it wouldn't be appropriate to include him in either anymore and it is extremely doubtful that he is likely to acquire a higher level of notability than he already has. This article has been nothing more than a stub for almost 10 years now. A notability tag was placed on the article over two months ago but has not led to any improvement. The article has survived two previous attempts at deletion purely because not enough people were interested in discussing it, which says it all really. Aristiano (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable former local councillor. Tiller54 (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. XiuBouLin (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. The leader of Manchester City Council might manage to be notable, but not the leader of an opposition party. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -This is the 3rd nomination and i would think its time to lay it down. delete away! Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the third nomination — I don't know why "(3rd nomination)" is in the title of this page, because there hasn't been a "first" or "second" nomination at all. Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 6 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:21, 6 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JR Digs[edit]

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

Only one third-party source provided which appears to be a bunch of user-generated gibberish. Almost speedyable as an advert with with thin claims to fame. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve references. A quick Google search turned up significant coverage. See here, here, here, and here. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stripped a big chunk of the article for being unsourced promotional material that had a blatantly unencyclopedic tone, but the guy does actually have some properly sourceable notability as a Canadian television personality and Gemini Award nominee, per Tchaliburton's and other sources. Cleanup and referencing improvements are desperately needed here, it's true, but flag for repair and keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garduño's[edit]

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

Almost everything among the sources here is a mere local directory entry, or a mention. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, you've been behind the vast majority of speedy deletion votes on New Mexican restaurants, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Being purchased after falling into Chapter 7? being featured in Breaking Bad? being listed as "Best Mexican Restaurant" in Las Vegas, Nevada, consecutively for 17 years? How are any of these "local directories"? And, none of these articles are mentions, the Breaking Bad article even goes into detail of what Garduño's is. In fact, in the words of the Albuquerque Journal, "One of New Mexico’s most famous restaurant chains received some national TV exposure". First sentence. Smile Lee (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm really surprised to see an inclusionest recommending this for deletion. Any restaurant that can garner the best in Vegas for 17 years surely must be notable for that fact alone. Make it a multi state chain and deletion is really an unreasonable outcome. And besides the quality of sources is not in and of itself a reason to delete. The content and what the sources actually say matters. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Smile Lee and Vegaswikian. DocterCox (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The chain barely meets the standards of WP:Notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH because one out of all of the sources is coverage about the company. The rest are poor quality because said provided sources all fall under WP:Routine or are WP:Primary. They consist almost exclusively of reviews, listings from travel guides, or from local business directories; not one of the dozen or so other sources are actually about the company. Yes some of the sources provided are unto themselves reliable, the reliability of the source does not connote automatic notability on the subject. While the company is local and local chains can be notable, these other sources are not sufficient to prove its notability, which means there needs to be more because a single GNG-compatible sources is not enough to provide the necessary notability to keep around. It needs more quality sources and if they are not provided it should go. I think that it can be rescued. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Enough sources to support that this is a notable (albeit small) chain with some lasting significance in the world of New Mexican food. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 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 deckertalk 02:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzog Martin V. Zoransky[edit]

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

Hoax (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/27. Juli 2014#Martin von Zoransky for German discussion, ending with speedy deletion, after this Article was translated into German) Susumu at (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be part of an extensive hoax, using self-published books uploaded to Google Books with faked publication dates. Sockpuppetry seems likely as well; I'm pulling together an investigation. Choess (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax probably applies to all Articles in Category:Zoransky. They all had a speedy deletion request recently by the way, which was removed.--Susumu at (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the following articles should probably be added to the AfD:
    All of the above form a walled garden with the article discussed here. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Good Lord. Yes, to the extent that I can check those books using google books snippet view, they are self-published, and they don't appear to be at all reliable----they're not even properly typeset. The claimed publication dates are incompatible with the ISBNs. The investigation on de.wiki was thorough and closely-reasoned. I think they're right: the balance of probability is that this is an elaborate hoax. @Choess: I can read German, please let me know if you need help on that front during your SPI.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Danke sehr, ist gar kein Problem. Hier steht dem SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston. There are a number of other articles there, some of which have hair-raising BLP issues and most of which are probably not fake but also non-notable. Choess (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suppose all the Threston articles are to be included as well? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're legitimate but non-notable. I think a separate AFD would be better to avoid entangling them with the hoax issues here. Choess (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I declined speedy deletion nominations, because WP:CSD#G3 is only for blatant and obvious hoaxes. These look plausible at first glance, but the German investigation is convincing. Even if the people were real, notability is doubtful, and the sources are far to dodgy to sustain articles. JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think declining the speedy was the right call: this isn't within G3's ambit because it's insufficiently blatant. However, I think it would be appropriate to close this AfD early under WP:SNOW. I don't think it's possible to advance a plausible defence of the article now.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The German version of this article has been deleted because it was considered a fake biography. No information additional to those that were given in the article had been found, the given references were considered as highly questionable and obscure, since they were either general overviews on Prussian nobility without mentioning Martin von Zoransky, were auto-translations of other Wikipedia-articles, sel-publicized with no proper publisher, or information by private persons from other websites that could not be cross-checked. The works of Martin von Zoransky were not to be found. As a matter of fact publications that were said to be published by Zoransky were published by other people as in the case of the following essay: Archiv der Mathematik und Physik. 1906, vol. 3 und vol. 9, p. 81 und p. 209., actually written by “Kasimir Zorawski”, with no mentioning of Zoransky even in the footnotes. Another publication, allegedly published in 1918 (ISBN 1499310390) contains a text that was published on one of the given sites. Additional to that, ISBN-numbers did not exist prior to the late 1960es. The German discussion concluded, that one should have expected to find veritable information on nobility especially online, since there were so many newsgroups on genealogy of nobility, especially if he was downgraded from Duke. Events like that should still make the news. One also wonders how family documents of allegedly Prussian nobility ends up in Bavarian States archive. Additional to that the Coat of Arms of the Zoransky Family, looks pretty much like the Coat of Arms of the family of Dołęga Dołęga. One might suspect that it has just been copied in order to back up the claim of the Zoransky family being nobility. In consummation: there are no valid information on Martin von Zoransky, nor sound reference that stand the proof. Those references given are highly questionable and in case of allegedly German sources online, turned out to be bad translations or text of either unknown origin or turned out to be auto-translations of English Wikipedia articles. The same goes for Herzog Bernhard Zoransky and Joseph C. Zoransky that were discussed AfD above. LagondaDK (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm shaking my head at how much work someone put into this hoax, including creating an elaborate coat of arms (which is also nominated for deletion on Commons). Jonathunder (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: I have spent quite a bit of time in editing and translating the three articles. By now I am convinced that Martin von Zoransky was no "Herzog" (duke). The German references in these articles are very poor translations of text that I couldn't find anywhere else. I still believe that some of the information in these articles is accurate, but due to the fake sources, it is impossible to distinguish between hoax and history. It will be easier to start from scratch than correcting the articles. Therefore, I endorse the deletion of these articles and the coat of arms that is shown in these. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all all the involved articles lack any clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as hoaxes, or as banned user creations for having been created by members of this sock farm. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 21:54, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Polen[edit]

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

This person seams not notable. Google new search returns no hits [17]. Google Books has some results, probably not about this person, as some of those books are from 1930s and 1940s [18]. Article looks like an advertizement. Cited sources just mention or quote him, with no significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please google "benjamin polen real estate" and you will see relevant hits. He was quoted in a law review article certifying his expertise on real estate mortgages. http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%202/Marsh.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gowanusgondolier (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you can see above, I did Google for him, I even gave links to the search results. Being quoted is not enough. Wikipedia needs significant coverage in reliable sources (see: WP:42). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Promotional bollox that serves no purpose to the 'pedia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, or even Speedy Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 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 redirect to Toontown Online#Closure. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown Rewritten[edit]

Toontown Rewritten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The topic in question has had several attention ranging from news webshows like "The Daily Byte" to articles on respected websites such as Bloomberg and The Escapist. This should be and is notable enough. Besides, have you seen a fanmade online game come this far into development with no sign of slowing down? I respectfully ask we keep it up. 71.28.167.114 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should stay on the website. The topic in question has shown a rise in popularity and deserves to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.32.153 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was tagged to be speedy deleted, but best discuss it properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Toontown_Online#Closure. I've made a one sentence mention of the game in the closure section of the TO article. Until this fan game gains more coverage, that's all it merits at this point in time- if that. Given that there was only one Bloomberg article about it, I can see where others would argue that it may not even warrant that much of a mention on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Tokyogirl79; certainly not notable enough for a standalone article. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a mention of it in the ToonTown article, considering the limited coverage it has received in the media (and then having a redirect to the respective section). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not yet notable enough for a standalone article. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 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 deckertalk 02:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isnik Alimi[edit]

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

This player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He played for the Macedonian second league club, he signed for Chievo, but had not played a game yet. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:27, 30 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. Comment above ignores the fact that Macedonia is not a recognised fully professional league and so whether he played there or not does not aid an NFOOTY pass. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 09:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Baffler[edit]

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

promo The Banner talk 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable magazine with significant coverage in reliable sources. See, e.g, Color Me Baffled! Thomas Frank’s Magazine Lives Again, The Baffler Puts Its Archive Online. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is assured. You can type "The Baffler" into Google and come up with results just like the one in the response above mine, including articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the MIT Press Journal, and so on, all about the article's topic. The magazine has always had a relatively small circulation compared to many of its peers, but it has also launched or featured many extremely high-profile writers. It's notable without a doubt, and the poverty of information in the article is something I intend to fix in the near future, by the way. MediaMaven3 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known less-known magazine. -- GreenC 03:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 24.151.10.165 & MediaMaven3. Easily passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 18:04, 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Andrew Walsh[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only source provided is self published. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: speedy declined. Head of department and 200 published papers is enough to pass the low bar of WP:CSD#A7. More references are needed to decide whether he meets WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly an authority in his field. h=78, with 56 papers having more than 100 citation each. This is a very notable record even in the highly cited biomedical sciences. The article of course needs considerable expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. (For that matter, I challenge anyone to find a full professor at the University of Washington in the last 50 years who will not be found to meet WP:PROF. Being a full professor at a major university is not a formal standard, but it might as well be, for there are remarkably few exceptions. Almost none have ever been deleted here in the last 5 or 6 years, unless there is some prejudice against the particular field as having low standards, or the specific individual as being controversial in a way that's not popular here.) DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject may be a prodigious author on certain subjects, but research indicates that he is not yet notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. He is not just a prolific author: the high citation counts indicate that his papers were important and influential. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 30 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, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Admittedly, I've been off Wikipedia for a few years so I may be rusty. Don't we require the subject be covered in multiple, reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:N? Although he appears to have published quite a bit, those are all primary sources. Is there anything third-party covering him and/or his research? (I can't find anything but I may just be missing it). Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure whether the Edman award (for which I added a non-primary source) is enough for WP:PROF#C2 but the citation record is clearly enough for #C1. As for the arguments that we need third-party sourcing: 56 papers x 100 citations each = 5600 sources about Walsh's work. Most of them are probably not sufficiently in-depth but one doesn't need a very high fraction of them to have non-trivial coverage in order to get enough sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep with stunning cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tycko[edit]

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

Only reference provided is self-published. I couldn't find any other reliable sources covering the subject. Fails WP:BIO. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think, per WP:ACADEMIC, among other reasons because he's a fellow of the AAAS [19] and thus passes #3. A nice list of prizes in the article, which I imagine can be validated from various sources e.g. [20][21][22] His work is way outside my usual fields, so I will be interested in comments from others who work more regularly in this area. --22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxiloxos (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per sources provided by the above editor who doesn't have a name lol Arxiloxos. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the AAAS fellow designation, he was named a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 1997 per this. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 18:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the double pass of WP:PROF#C3 (and likely pass of #C2) he also passes #C1 with 54 publications listed by Google scholar as having 100+ citations, with the top one over 1000. To the nominator: these citations constitute thousands of reliably published references mentioning the subject's research, likely some of them in nontrivial detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The publications are impressive, and the fellowship should make him pass WP:SCHOLAR. Jacona (talk) 20:12, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numeer Nabi[edit]

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

1. Notability is not established. 2. Unreliable references.Most of them dead links or links leading to self publishing platforms or website of the concerned person. External links are no different. 7Sidz (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


3. Notability can be established from [1][2][3] as these are not self publishing platforms . these are notable news papers platforms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlawe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Carlawe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


4. i think notabilty has been established with refrence of persons name in book among notable people— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaganwr (talk • contribs) 05:39, July 30, 2014 (UTC)— Slaganwr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

6. The newspaper references (1,2 or 3) DO NOT contain the name Numeer Nabi in any of the articles. Also, Why is it that accounts of users who have not even been auto confirmed getting into this? Is this a proxy mode of getting support for the article?

If the book is publised, do let the community know about the ISBN Number of the book. You name the author as Raghubir Lal Anand. A Google search revealed no notable author of the name. What are his credentials? 7Sidz (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Desperate attempts are being made now. 7Sidz (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


7. The newspaper references DO contain the name Numeer Nabi as celebrity profile and topic | ISBN 9781482818222 is number of book . [4] [5] [6]

The person has acted in international [7]movie also [8] [9] [10] [11]

8. Another new user registration? When will this acts end? So you say that the news paper references do contain the name, for your reference the links are: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Numeer-Nabi ii) http://wn.com/numeer_nabi iii)http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/numeer-nabi

Tell me the difference between that page and a fictitious name made up by me: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle ii) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle Cite specific lines that say about the concerned person. So, it's a self published book again.

9. i had contributed to the page some time before . I think book bearing [12][23] is not self published . [13][24]

[14] [15][25]i added google search link of both author and publisher for notability issue i add few links may be these help in discussion [16] [17] [18] [19] 

Modlgear (talk) 22:21,31 july 2014 (UTC) — Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

10.why is it getting personal here . if person has notability let it be here 

   in my opinion we should contribute links and references to improve article 
   the book discussed is published by Penguin (publisher) sublet partridge publication 
   so ISBN Number of the book is valid and it is a valid reference [20][26] even if we doubt    other references
 
 Kashmir proud (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs). [reply]
11.Not a self publishing platform? Well quoting the first few lines from the Patridge India website

link: "Welcome to Partridge India, a new supported self-publishing imprint from Author Solutions LLC" And what's more, the author has to subscribe to one of the plans (i.e.give money) to get the book published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Sidz (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 1, 2014 (UTC)


12 All major publishing platforms include this option that does not mean you can publish any thing .Author is notable so is book it is not about person but Kashmir valley other references . links about movie can be validated as non self publishing platforms link

[21] also [22] [23] [24] [25]

links for reference [26]can be validated similar to [27]. not self published bt published by editor and created due to notability


(Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)13:21,2nd august 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

13. Referring to your comment 7Sidz that u created john castle . i dont think john castle is a fictitious character but well know personality and profiles on these newspapers refer to notable people may be there is no news about them in corresponding news paper but still persons are notable that is why news profile is created so as u commented :- (Tell me the difference between that page and a fictitious name made up by me: i) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle ii) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/John-Castle Cite specific lines that say about the concerned person. So, it's a self published book again. ) your saying that you created johncastle as fictious character is baseless so re-access your debate . for you books links documents all are fictious all news papers publishers websites all are self created and published .

Modlgear (talk) 22:21 , 2 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

14. A few posts before the debate was that the book is NOT self published and now the debate has shifted altogether! A lot many duplicate references are being created in the name of proving "notability".

Yeah, Modlgear why not? So is xyz yem also a notable person for you? If for a second, i assume your above stated arguments to be true. Then, xyz yem must be a notable person. See for yourself http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/xyz-yem http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/xyz-yem

Knowing that administrators know best about Wikipedia, I leave this debate up to administrators to decide now.


7Sidz (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15. topic is jumping away from here there . As you say xyz yem 7Sidz it topics dont include persons only but interests also

I simplifying this discussion i highlight links and references neutrally on top of discussion to make it simple and precise Modlgear (talk) 6:18 , 3 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).


My comment is recent than most other comments i am placing it on top to simplify the discussion The topic seems dragging away to and fro during discussion multiple accounts with not good credibility trying to support page and accounts against topic drift it away from main theme so for simplification purpose of topic discussion i summarize topic and discussion neutrally leaving rest to admin

1.1 References in book [28] Book:- IS God DEAD?????: The Truth about Jammu & Kashmir by RAGHUBIR LAL ANAND ISBN 9781482818222 is reg. number of book

credibility of book references IS God DEAD?????: The Truth about Jammu & Kashmir link 2author credibilitylink 3 for author credibility

1.2 References for presence of person in movie link 1link 2link 3

Reference for credibility of movie link 1link 2 link 3

1.3 links and references of name included with highly notable people link 1link 2link 3
1.4 Links to discography and filmography link 1
1.5 Non credible and weak links link 1 link 2link 3link 4link 5link 6link 7link 8

I summarized all of discussion on basis of links classifying all links into groups including comments of all users . Hope all users here Jinkinson 7Sidz Kashmir proud Slaganwr Carlawe are satisfied with effort of me summarizing this discussion in neutral fashion

Modlgear (talk) 6:54 , 3 August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

A point or two from my side :

i) Refer to the lead section of the article Numeer Nabi : 'music director, producer host, and social worker' words like 'world wide fame, when surely there has been NO article in Indian media about him.

ii)No reference(s) once again, (while containing peacock terms) for "Further, "Valley's 1st ever 1080! HD video. It met a lot of success taking yafak' s YouTube channel to the level of most popular channel and most trending video in Kashmir."

iii) A registered book that is based on a self publishing platform.

iv)Further, IMDb's use is disputed in certain cases or inappropriate.

v) "Highly notable" people reference guides to "Can you guess the names of ex-lovers?" of three different websites. All these problems make the article "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) and containing "original research" (violates WP:NOR) The page was clearly made as a way for self promotion and advertising.

7Sidz (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


16 Few Points from my side . A reply to 7Sidz . Arash is Tehran born singer a very notable personality all over world even he has no article in a newspaper to support his notability according to your view point this does not mean Arash is not notable . Singers , models depend on other platform for fame . i include search result for Arash on google Search result for Arash on google 

As far as Numeer nabi is considered music is published over 20 platforms around world and there are references for    
   supporting person as notable person as person also acted in movies outside own country
Besides previous mentioned refrences I mention few with links here



None of these platforms or websites is self publishing (Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)18:25 ,3rd august 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

    • Arash?
BTW it has been wikilinked to the wrong Arash.

Arash's notability comes from the fact that EUROVISION's website itself states his name and has uploaded his video songs.

As for the links are concerned. Reliability again, my friend. It's NOT the number of links but the quality. Those links contain content farms, forums, blogs. 7Sidz (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete with extreme prejudice Even if the subject is notable (which does not seem to be shown by the references that are in the article itself, those that actually work) the article itself is so incoherent that there is essentially nothing here worth trying to save in mainspace.... the article would require a complete rewrite to become even remotely encyclopedic, and as this AfD shows in extreme detail, none of the interested parties seems sufficiently competent with Wikipedia editing or content policies to make with required changes without extreme mentoring through the AfC process. Reventtalk 17:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19: I dont think the below given links are blogs or farm static links but reliable platforms

(Kashmir proud • Kashmir proud|contribs)09:17 , 4th August 2014 (UTC)— Kashmirproud (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ refrence to notability of author and book
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ movie
  8. ^ [6]
  9. ^ movie
  10. ^ [7]
  11. ^ [8]
  12. ^ ISBN 9781482818222
  13. ^ reference
  14. ^ [9]
  15. ^ reference to publisher of book
  16. ^ http://www.moviesession.net/watch-shabane-rooz-2011-online
  17. ^ http://www.iran-web.rozblog.com/post/12656
  18. ^ http://www.chizomiz.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8083:Shabaneh-Rooz&catid=73:Movies&Itemid=147
  19. ^ http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/is-god-dead-raghubir-lal-anand/1118614164?ean=9781482818239
  20. ^ reference
  21. ^ movie
  22. ^ [10]
  23. ^ [11]
  24. ^ [12]
  25. ^ [13]
  26. ^ link1
  27. ^ link2
  28. ^ [14]
  • Delete - Delete as per WP:NACTOR. I don't know if all above external links and broken html/wiki tags making any sense. Well, it does not have significant coverage in free media (and please don't give all above links agian). I guess this could be the case of WP:COI as the infobox image is claimed to be owned by the contributor. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Fails NACTOR, couldn't find any mention in independent sources, and nothing worth saving. APerson (talk!) 18:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete enough reference and links to support . Enough independent sources and platforms for supporting article

Modlgear (talk) 9:54 , 4th August 2014 (UTC)— Modlgear (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Metroindia (talk • contribs).

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

The result was delete. I'm discounting the first and last "keep" !votes, as they give no policy-based rationales for keeping the article. The sources added by Rich Farmbrough (presumably—I don't have access to them) establish that she did indeed appear in two of the roles listed in her filmography, but no one has adduced evidence that any of her roles have been "significant". The consensus is that the subject fails WP:NACTOR. Deor (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Deese[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:39, 29 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, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:DIDEROT Jim-Siduri (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also is a WP:BLP that is completely unsourced, and I can't find anything even remotely resembling a reliable source. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP with no source. A quick search revealed nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles like that need deeper research, like typing "Mary Deese" and the "name of the movie" to see if she got a review. Just searching Mary Deese" actress brings dozens of returns and it's a matter of those who know which sites in entertainment are and are not WP:RS. It's a stub. Eight of twelve movies she's been in have articles. Let's be inclusionist and not have to rewrite the article should she suddenly become the start of some top hollywood comedy or whatever. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dallas is a big show. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No major roles, no scandals, no publicity. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment couple of RS found. So arguments about unsourced BLP fail. Notability is still a problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC).
    S
  • Delete I see no evidence that any of her roles are "significant", and so far, no reliable sources have been found that discuss her life and career at any length. Of course, the article can be recreated if her career takes off. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:33, 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. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Bruder[edit]

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

This is an unedited machine translation (Google translate) of the Czech Wikipedia article George Bruder. According to WP:Translation#How to translate: "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". It is also a copyrights infringement, as the original author is not credited. Basically, even WP:A2 can apply here, as this is not English, but Czech language article, and it exists in Czech Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G12, possibly A2 as well, per nom. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as the article has been TNT'd. Not sure if the first revisions should be deleted per WP:RD1. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten the article and deleted the text of revisions possibly violating copyrights, please check. It is now a short stub referenced by obituaries published by the mainstream Czech media, which suggests he was notable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has improved and the subject is notable.--Racklever (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears we need better coverage of cultural institutions in the Czech Republic. Also, even with my most recent revisions I am not sure it reads fully good in English prose. Editing is hard with all the distracting long links to the Czech Wikipedia because we lack articles on some of the things here in the English Wikipedia. Still, the subject seems to easily pass our notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 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 speedy keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:39, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:37, 6 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 keep. Speedy Keep--Bundled at Solar cycle 1 j⚛e deckertalk 02:36, 6 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| verbalize _ 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coyame UFO incident[edit]

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

In 2009 when this was first nominated for deletion, the !Keep arguments were basically that because there were sensationalist cable shows and UFOlogy books written on the subject, that made this notable enough for an article. I think that we now have a better understanding of what makes a UFO incident notable... in particular we keep in mind WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND and look for independent, reliable sources that discuss the event independent of promotion of the UFO true believer agenda. Such sources have not been forthcoming in the five years since this was last AfD'ed. The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source and the fact that this story was told on A&E or History Channel ratings bate does not mean that the story is notable enough for a stand-alone article any more than the individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens show would be deserving of a stand alone article. We have plenty of articles on UFOs and UFO incidents where the fact that people tell this story can be mentioned, but it's time to let the article solely about this purported event go the way of other non-notable UFO incidents. jps (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia we determine Keep/Deletes based on WP:CONSENSUS, not Votes. Given WP:CCC, the 2009 delete discussion is a non-issue here, both for and against. WP:NFRINGE states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it." One such source would be THIS one from History Channel. Another example of independent coverage is THIS one published by Tor Books. As for "The sole source for the article these days is a self-published source", I always find it fascinating how many good-faith editors and deletionists point to SPS as if we had a ban on SPS. I would point such defractors to the fact that they may have missed that there is no umbrella ban. In any event, the sole source "these days" may appear to be the alleged SPS because, I notice, just last month an editor removed HERE all the in-text sourcing to the History Channel, and yet, -curiously- left intact the entire "Television" section, including the arguably unreliable Arts and Entertainment Network sources. An editor oversight? I don't know. A Wikipedia double-standard? I don't know. A contributors' conspiracy? Again, I don't know. Whatever the reason and his edit summary notwithstanding, the comparison made above to "individual tales told on the Ancient Aliens" is whole inadequate. THIS source on the origin of life states "there are many books and documentaries over the Coyame UFO incident", while this other one HERE on the history of the town of Coyame states "Viewers of the History Channel have doubtless noticed some of their numerous shows concerning UFO evidence, always including both believers and skeptics to leave the interpretation open to the viewer. A good example is their UFO Files: Mexico's Roswell video (History Channel 2005)". I don't perceive any "sentationalism" nor "UFO true believer agendas" even in these two SPS; these sources are far from that. In the end, the question to be asked is, IMO, if readers come across a reference to the Coyame UFO Incident in some other publications, will they be able to come to Wikipedia for information as to what such incident was? By deleting the article the answer is an obvious "No." Mercy11 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While mention of a topic on cable TV entertainment shows has a place in the "popular culture" section of articles about notable subjects, the shows themselves are not reliable or independent sources of fact. The same goes for books by UFOlogists like Bill Birnes or a non-notable author publishing his fringe theories via a vanity press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I provided the keep arguments above. In addition, claims of the History Channel being "cable TV entertainment" have no basis - particularly when it is just a claim with not RS to back it up. A search in Google Books yields a whooping 125,000 hits for "'History Channel' documentary" but only a mere 37,000 hits for "'History Channel' entertainment". Its History Channel wikiarticle treats it in a similar fashion, with not a single mention of entertainment there but several references to "documentary". The dismissal into "popular culture" is interesting, but poor judgement given the mountain of source evidence available - especially when our guidelines state "For a fringe theory to be considered notable...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", and THIS fully satisfies that. As such, the vanity press claim comes without foundation as well - sorry but, again, those are claims without sources. Mercy11 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCECOUNTING with WP:GHITS is a terrible argument to make. There is plenty of evidence that the "History Channel" shows are not admissible as reliable and neutral sources when it comes to WP:FRINGE topics: [27], [28], [29], etc. In fact, the very Wikipedia page you cite as evidence includes an entire section explaining the problems with that tabloid channel: History Channel#Criticism and evaluation. It is, frankly, rather surprising anyone would argue otherwise, and I can only appeal to WP:COMPETENCE as a possible explanation. jps (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, I didn't think I would have to repeat myself ad nauseum once more but, in case it was missed, here it is once more: The relevant and applicable Wikipedia guideline here, WP:NFRINGE, states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable,...at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", and THIS fully satisfies that. BTW, we don't pit long-established community-approved Wikipedia pillars that have resulted from time-consuming peer-reviewed consensus, such as WP:NFRINGE, against self-published Wikipedia opinion essays like the ones mentioned in the rebuttal above (i.e., WP:SOURCECOUNTING, WP:GHITS, and WP:COMPETENCE). Such 3 essays may be fine for clarifying a point but not as a valid argument positioned to replace a guideline. The History Channel#Criticism and evaluation wikilink above is likewise a WP:SPS and a poor choice as a valid delete argument, where "valid arguments citing relevant guidelines [are] given more weight than unsupported statements". Mercy11 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing any evidence of notability here. I look around and find next to nothing. It will be a stretch to even scrape together a single source for this. Goblin Face (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a stand alone article, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. WP:GNG). This topic fails that requirement, particularly as it relates to the reliability of sources. For example, William J. Birnes, a self-described "UFO expert", was apparently the "consulting producer" for the History Channel piece and the author of UFO Hunters: Book One. These are two of the sources that Mercy11 posits as reliable sources. First of all, notice that the History Channel piece presents the UFO incident as fact. Secondly, Birnes writes: "Moreover, had it not been for a mysterious report filed with an entity referred to as the Deneb team, the crash might have gone completely unnoticed by the UFO community."(p. 132) After detailing that report, he then gives credibility to the speculation that "ETs in human form who are monitoring the military's monitoring of UFOs" are responsible for writing it!(p. 138) Per WP:RS, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources that spin details from a "mysterious report" that potentially originated with human-form ETs then present it as fact do NOT have reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Location (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have specific notability guidelines that apply to fringe theories. As such WP:FRINGE, and not WP:GNG, is the precise applicable guideline here. You are right that "Per WP:RS, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but your argument fails miserably when you attempt to apply it to the published author instead of to the publisher because at Wikipedia we consider an author who has been published by a reliable publisher to have passed the requirement of "published by a reliable, independent publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Birnes's publisher, Tor Books, is a subsidiary of McMillan, one of the world's leading academic and peer-reviewed publishers. Second-guessing the publisher by attempting to do an exhaustive analysis of Birnes's published printed book, as you did above, and using character-assassination innuendo language, such as the "self-described UFOlogist" text above, on a NYU-educated Ph.D. who has written several books on the UFO subject, and to do so in an attempt to prove him as an unreliable source, boils down, IMO, to a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You spent the majority of your comment doing just that. However, we are not here to discuss whether or not the 2013 book by Birnes "UFO Hunters: Book One" is a notable piece of literature. Nor we are not here to argue whether the Coyame UFO incident was factual or not. And we are not here to decide whether or not the subject matter is notable enough based on whether or not we individually believe in UFOs (sort of analogous to arguing the Bible article shouldn't exists because the Bible is a fairy tale). We are here to discuss whether or not the Coyame UFO incident is an UFO incident notable enough to warrant its own article based on the existence of "at least one reliable secondary source [that has] commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it". Mercy11 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on multiple points: 1) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether the story is true, 2) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I believe the story to be true, 3) notability of a topic is not dependent upon whether you or I like the story, and 4) notability of a topic is dependent upon various aspects of coverage in reliable sources. Our interpretation of reliable sourcing for fringe-type articles appears to be where we differ. Your quotation of WP:NFRINGE has omitted a very important part of that guideline: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article [emphasis mine] if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." None of the sources that you have presented pass that test. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see much evidence for notability here. I would expect to see at the least local news articles on the crash, but I can't find any. The incident has been debunked, albeit in a self-published source, which may not be reliable(!)--Auric talk 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which newspapers did you check and what did you search for? Does anyone know what the Spanish term for "UFO" is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Spanish for UFO is "OVNI". I checked Google (News) and Highbeam. I just checked Newsbank and found some articles with passing mentions under "Coyame crash".--Auric talk 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Featured on the History Channel as "Mexico's Roswell"[30] and referenced by contemporary news reports forty years after the incident.[31][32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no incident in 1974, so there is no need to search Spanish language resources for reports of a crash. All the material about this alleged incident is an uncritical regurgitation of what Torres and Uriarte wrote in Mexico's Rosewell. You could try to make an argument that this should pass WP:NBOOK, but we don't build Wikipedia articles based on unreliable sources (i.e. sources that cannot distinguish fact from hoax). Location (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the incident actually happened is besides the point. Hoaxes can be notable, too. See Piltdown Man as a classic example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated" and as such has plenty of reliable sources discussing it as such. On the other hand, the only sources that discuss this one or those gullible enough to present it as fact. Given that there are no reliable sources discussing this as an "alleged incident" or a hoax, is Wikipedia to present this as an event that actually happened? Hoaxes can be notable if they are discussed in reliable sources, but this one is not. Location (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever checked the article text? It is not presented "as an event that actually happened". Luckylouie's edit conforms to the standards. Your definition of "fact-checking" is not correct. "Verifiability, not truth" is the core of the policy WP:V, here. If we (or someone else) can verify that coyame people tell stories about an ufo-plane collision and crash, that's the fact checking. There are some other issues, though. Logos5557 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are in complete agreement about verifiability vs. truth in WP:V. My point is that if the article states that this is an alleged incident, then we need a reliable source stating that it is an alleged incident. Otherwise, the use of "alleged" means we have poisoned the well as to what we think the truth might be. Location (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that there is a motivation to promote "UFO Hunters" book, which seems as directly related to History channel coverage of this incident. So, why repeat the same source, when there is another one mentioning the incident? The so called "deneb report" is not convincing to me, looks quite amateurish. If I were Torres & Uriarte, and Birns later, I would build this myth on the "legendary" UFO factory in Mexico, owned by USA. There are "rumours" of 2 underground manufacturing plants (one in new-mexico, the other in mexico) built to construct remotely controlled UFOs for weaponry purposes. When you fly & control something remotely and if you do not have a collision avoidance technology capable of working at high speeds, then shit can happen sometimes. Logos5557 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what your intention was (whether critical, that is, with malice, or positive, that is, constructive) in your use of the word "motivation" and then linking to it edits that I made. If constructive, I thank you, and I will assume good faith and assume you are, in fact, addressing the issue and not attacking me personally, because if your intention was to attack me personally, (1) your "seems" clause is ridiculously speculative - at Wikipedia we determine issues based on facts, not speculation; (2) you have Zero percent (0%) clue as to what my alleged "motivation" was - if you wanted to know, you should had simply asked me rather than attempt to influence this forum with an unfounded allegation; (3) to save your asking now, I inform you I made the edits for the same reason I make every other edit in Wikipedia - to improve it: the previous version HERE was pointing to a source that was tagged as SPS, and my edit HERE updated the article with a source that is not a SPS converting it into a better version HERE. That is, the UFO Hunters book was not used as a source before and thus the nominator above made the claim that the article was a candidate for deletion becuase it had no RS as it was using Francisco Natera's (2012) "Coyame a History of the American Settler", a book published by a the self-publishing company Xlibris Corporation, as a source. As allowed by the AfD policy, I improved the article by removing the SPS and adding a non-SPS source in its place. Do you have a problem with that? So far it appears you do, and so I am asking you.
If you had wanted to improve the encyclopedia, rather than propagating the SPS inline tag when you made THIS copy HERE and thus perpetuating the SPS error, you could had as easily removed the alleged SPS cite before your copy to List of UFO Sightings (since there was another source there anyway) or, better yet, you could had found a SPS yourself and add it before you propagated the article SPS error. Your edit at List of UFO Sightings (yielding THIS unsightly version) was, IMO, either laziness or poor judgment. And to rebuk your "promotion" allegation, there is no need to "promote" the UFO Hunters book to anything: this discusion here is about the article Coyame UFO incident, and not about the book UFO Hunters which is not, and has never been, self-published. Mercy11 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I retract my "motivation to promote" remark, as it seems that that book was not in the article previously. I must have confused it with one of the repetitive citations to UFO Hunters-history channel. However, in the end, history channel UFO Hunters is directly related to the book, therefore adding it to the article is just to repeat the same source ("WILLIAM J. BIRNES is the New York Times bestselling coauthor of The Day After Roswell and The Haunting of America. He is the lead host and consulting producer of the UFO Hunters® series, and guest host of Ancient Aliens® series, and the guest expert on UFOs and American history on the America’s Book of Secrets®, all of which air on HISTORY®"). SPS tag/label is just to warn the reader and to create the potential of a better source in future. Self published sources are not forbidden completely, it requires some judgement. In this incident's case, since there is no other alternative, using it as a source will not bring the end of the world. Because, the book's theme is Coyame and its culture etc., not UFOs, which increases its "value" compared to Birnes' book. Not every argument is holy truth in AFD discussions/nominations. When UFO Hunters article is created, most probably it will be merged into UFO Hunters eventually. Logos5557 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is obviously not a notable fringe theory that deserves an article.Forbidden User (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, presuming there has been an exhaustive search for RS, and this ebook preview is the best anyone could come up with. This ebook preview is not a RS. As it is the only source, that kills the article right there. If someone has the actual book, and the book has additional content of an entirely different nature from this ebook preview, then the book itself should be cited, not this preview. This ebook preview is not a RS for at least these four reasons:
  1. It appears to be little more than promotional material for the TV show. (Macmillan describes it as a companion book to the TV show.) The copyright for the book is owned by A&E Television Network (same parent company as the History Channel, A+E Television Networks), not the author, and not the publisher. A&E is a for-profit enterprise with a financial interest in promulgating this story as a historical event. That is a conflict of interest between A&E's profits and the contents of the text being true. (I.e., A&E will get more viewers and more ad revenue if UFO believers see them as the only source of information that they want, such as this story and others like it. Fringe adherents can be particularly vulnerable to this kind of financial exploitation because they have so few sources to begin with.)
  2. This ebook preview is a primary source. The author is telling his own account of the group's trip to Mexico and his own interpretation of the evidence. He is a primary source with the same financial conflict of interest as A&E. (WP:WPNOTRS)
  3. Most of the content, other than the first-person account of the trip to Mexico, is speculation, and it is described as such. (In some places, however, the text does treat the incident as fact. That self-contradiction in itself is very problematic for reliability.)
  4. As this is an ebook preview, many, many pages are missing. When there are missing pages, there is missing context. Did one of the missing pages nullify what is said on the available pages? "The following account is fictitious. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental."
FWIW, the Macmillan name does not grant academic credibility to the book. Macmillan is not "one of the world's leading academic and peer-reviewed publishers," and in any case this is neither an academic book nor is it peer-reviewed. Pearson bought out Macmillan's academic publishing some time back (late 90s I think?), long before this book was published under the Tor Books (sci-fi & fantasy) imprint. (Pearson has been buying up academic publishers for a couple decades now - Benjamin Cummings, AWL, Macmillan, part of Harcourt, Prentice Hall and the rest of Simon & Schuster's academic publishing. Most college textbooks, regardless of the imprint, are now Pearson publications.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:32, 7 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) 22:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Childhood (Yehuda Nir)[edit]

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

PROD contested by an IP, no reason given. There is no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. GiantSnowman 11:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creating an article on the author, and then rediretcing/merging seems like a sensible suggestion. GiantSnowman 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This book was turned into an Opera (although that is not on the page) [38][39] so it is notable. The Opera has been performed several times and in different venues and countries. I have also found the New York Times review of it [40] if that helps anyone out in writing it. The article does need a lot of work and I would probably remove the About the Author section and give him his own article.Sunnydoo (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A book getting reviewed and/or being turned into an Opera does not confer notability. GiantSnowman 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create Yehuda Nir, who has a New York Times obit. I'm going to have to assume that the nominator didn't read the newspapers in the past few days. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 22 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) 15:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly established by the sources cited by Vejvančický. Article needs to be clearer that this was first an adult book published in 1989[41], then reissued in a young readers' version by Scholastic in 2002 [42][43]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:40, 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. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam song)[edit]

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

Song was not released as a single per the band's website. Fails WP:N as a stand-alone article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 23:05, 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) 15:43, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Chera[edit]

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

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 without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:15, 30 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) 12:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - wow, this takes me back, I remember being personally insulted in the first AfD on this kid and was shocked to find it was eight years ago!! Back then one editor argued the article should be kept because the kid was the new Pele - that seems to have turned out really well....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject was deleted as non-notable 8 years ago and since then nothing has changed other than that he still hasn't played professional football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue giant (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I am not mandating this dab article to delete but you may judge its available content if this passes or fails the WP:DAB & WP:DABPRIMARY requirements. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Blue Giant (the band) is obviously a term that requires disambiguation from Blue giant (the star). The question is Neptune. I find the association of "Big Blue Giant" with Neptune to be existent but weak. It appears to be the title of a picture of Neptune taken by Voyager 2. As with the nominator, I don't have a huge problem with the disambiguation page's presence, but personally, I think the best option is to convert it to a WP:HATNOTE at Blue giant. If we decide to delete the page, we should not include Neptune in the hatnote, because its connection to the name "Big Blue Giant" is so weak. Mz7 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep, see below Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've now added a hatnote at Blue Giant (the band) to point to this dab page (should have been there before): if we did this with hatnotes we'd need to maintain them at both pages, a dab page seems tidier. PamD 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've removed irrelevant entries. Blue Giant Equipment are sometimes referred to just as 'Blue Giant', so all remaining entries are useful. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and trout nominator Don't use deletion discussions for content issues. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Two entries would be too few, but as long as all three of these articles stay around, this dab serves a useful purpose. Nick Number (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note, two entries is a valid reason not to create a disambiguation page, but not a valid reason to delete one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following the addition of Blue Giant Equipment Corporation to the disambiguation page. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason to trout the nominator for this good faith nomination. Prior to this addition, there were two topics requiring disambiguation: Blue giant (the primary topic) and Blue Giant (band). If these two topics had been the only topics that required disambiguation for the title "blue giant", then the use of hatnotes would be much more useful to readers per WP:TWODABS. I would support the use of hatnotes rather than a disambiguation page in that scenario. By extension, I would support the deletion of the disambiguation page. That right there is not a content issue—it's a matter which deletion is suitable for: hatnotes vs. dab pages. Now, TWODABS describes a situation where an unnecessary disambiguation page should kept anyway: that is when there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future (emphasis added). TWODABS also continues to say that the disambiguation page may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page, which seems to confirm that this is a valid reason to delete a dab page. Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 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 speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMELEC (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Useless dab, the Comité Maghrébin de l’Electricité, a supranational committee of the Arab Maghreb Union, does not exist on the link. Refer to WP:DAB & WP:TWODABS if this dab page passes fails the requirements. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: It only disambiguates a single existing article, not at least 2 articles per the requirements for disambiguation pages, so it can be deleted per G6. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JCI Technologies[edit]

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

nn PR spam. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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, buffbills7701 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are a couple of companies called "JCI Technologies", some of which have coverage in reliable sources (though not much). But none of them seem to be this "JCI Technologies" and almost all of the "sources" are dead-links. Without evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I can see how this could possibly pass WP:CORPDEPTH. St★lwart111 23:36, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 14:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seems more promotional than anything. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:57, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Polish National Catholic Church[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this church does not exist. "Third and Queen" in Pe Ell must refer to West Queen Avenue and South Third Street, where there is no church. The coordinates given in the article are slightly north-east of that corner in a field. While there are links to the National REgister of Historic Places, those documents give only the "Third and Queen" address. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/87001456_text Mikeblas (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination based on a misunderstanding; no deletion reason presented. -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's concern has been addressed, and properties which have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places are considered notable. I've added the site to WikiProject NRHP's list of errors in the National Register Information System for future reference. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:48, 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 deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mija Flatau[edit]

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

Biography of a blogger. The only sources that I could find were other minor blogs. Fails WP:AUTHOR. - MrX 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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. Deor (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Jenkins[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for musicians. Dave Jenkins is not the subject of non-trivial press or media coverage, nor is he a member of a notable ensemble.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above nomination for AfD was made by User:Walkabout12 on 23:50, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC + 10) who then modified it 15 minutes later, see Revision history. The user had PRODed the article at least twice, I have dePRODed it four times. See article's Revision history. Before my last dePRODing the user responded to my effort to adhere to WP:PROD policy with "do not continue to edit war in the article" on my talk page on 29 July. I hope that this AfD is run in a more orderly and civil manner.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is member of two or more notable ensembles per WP:MUSICBIO#6. Specifically he has been a member of Andy Bull's backing band and has recorded and toured with Bull; he has been a member of Reece Mastin's backing band and toured with Mastin both nationally and internationally. He has been a member of other ensembles including Fyna, The Inheritors (which toured Australia supporting Kisschasy) and Young Romantics (which released an EP, reviewer describes subject).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bow to the greater force of argument, if his work with Bull & Mastin is discounted then I agree his other work is not notable enough for an article. I remove my keep vote.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there was sufficient good source material for an article that'd be one thing, but the main problem is that he's really not that famous yet outside his field - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither of the notable artists mentioned are "ensembles"; they are solo artists who hire a variety of session musicians, dancers, etc. for promo and touring. The ensembles of which subject *is* a member are not notable.27.32.117.136 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - being backing musician for two or more notable people doesn't really count. Is this all he's done? - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a member of a backing band plainly does not count for MUSICBIO #6. The reference list at the bottom of the article looks long, but of course nothing there constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources (I hope no-one needs to explain why the Peninsula Community Access News is not a reliable source for our purposes). --Mkativerata (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other supporting arguments above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:12, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telkom Foundation[edit]

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

A7 Kadzi (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The foundation and its predecessor have been active for 34 years and I found a couple of non-trivial sources: [44][45]. Most of the sources I found were closely connected sources, trivial mentions and press releases. I can't find enough sources to verify that the organization meets WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 01:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All universities and high schools are of course notable; this is an organization that is a network of such institutions. and it is notable also; it should be considered the same as a local school vboard, and will serve as a place to mergethe various primary schools and the like. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:29, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Whiz[edit]

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

non-notable product. Essentially a stub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see another solid article, but with the addition I could see this going either way. I'm going to stick with my delete !vote for now. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have been expanded, but it didn't add any references, probably because none could be found. I didn't find any anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 6 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Anita's[edit]

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

"Contested CSD" from Talk:Little Anita's by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nomination reason is insufficient. Also, this chain of restaurants has been covered in multiple magazines, newspapers, and websites. It is extremely important to the history of New Mexican cuisine, and its restaurant culture. And it has received accolades outside of its founding region, particularly in Denver. And, considering its a New Mexican staple that means there are local accolades, not currently listed in the article. Smile Lee (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smile Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterCox (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 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 29. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. The article is well-structured, categorized, and factually accurate. Even as a stub, the article is heavily sourced, including sources not local to New Mexico such as The Washington Post, and as the previous comment notes, even more references are possible. I don't see a problem, let alone one so glaring and unfixable as to be worth destroying the article.  Unician ∇  13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only non local reference, the onefrom the Washington Post, is incompatible with the contents of this article. UIf it is in fact a national chain, then it would be notable. If it's thirteen restaurants in 2 local areas, that's another matter. That's all their own website claims. Can one of the supporters of the article explain the contradiction in the sources? DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response, WP:ITSLOCAL is not a reason for deletion. Regardless, that Washington Post article is about Anita Tellez, the founder of this establishment; and the article states that quite clearly. She is most famous for the creation of Little Anita's, and the several "Anita's" restaruants around the country. Little Anita's however is the only one to have significant coverage of its own. Smile Lee (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the national-level reliable source, this small chain is part of a national franchise. We do not make articles on individual branches of national food chains. I would have no objection to an article on the national franchise that mentioned there were some outlets in these two states. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response, it is not a "individual branch" of a "national food chain". The article clearly states that Little Anita's is its own thing, and the various Anita's restaurants around the country are from various family members from the same matriarch. The Little Anita's chain is the only restaurant that actually became a chain, it has also been the only one to be found in multiple states. The Little Anita's chain has been operating since 1976, so most secondary sources will probably be non-digital, and since it is a prominent part of New Mexican cuisine there are several OBVIOUS sources not incorporated into the article, like the Albuquerque Journal, The Albuquerque Tribune, Clovis News-Journal, The Gallup Independent, Santa Fe Reporter, and The Taos News. Smile Lee (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, just did some snooping, the two chains are indeed different, they would both require separate articles. Little Anita's is important to the New Mexico area for much different reasons, since its serving local cuisine, and has been doing so for more than 30 years. Anita's New Mexico Style is important to the Washington D.C. area, since it was founded by a different person, and under difference circumstances, and is successfully serving a different region's food. Smile Lee (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, “Anita's” is not a franchise, it's a restaurant business with multiple locations, all of which, as far as I know, were personally founded by Anita and operated by her family and staff. I agree that we don't create articles such as “McDonald's locations in Maine”, but this article is not of that type. The Washington DC area restaurants use the Website “www.anitascorp.com”.  Unician ∇  12:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The chain(s) do not meet the standards of WP:Notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH because all the sources provided fall under WP:Routine or are WP:Primary. They consist almost exclusively of reviews, listings from travel guides, or from local business directories; not one of the sources is actually about the company itself. Yes some of the sources provided are unto themselves reliable, the reliability of the source does not connote automatic notability on the subject. While the company is local and local chains can be notable, these sources are not sufficient to prove its notability, which means it has to go. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, notability does not solely rely on the sources within the article, as stated before there are still sources from Albuquerque Journal, The Albuquerque Tribune, Clovis News-Journal, The Gallup Independent, Santa Fe Reporter, and The Taos News not incorporated into the article. Notability relies on sources from outside of the article as well. Smile Lee (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) The current references are also not WP:Routine as they are not "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism... Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs... common, everyday, ordinary items". Smile Lee (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then provide them and stop arguing with us about our delete !votes. Also reviews, top 10 lists and other similar coverage are inherently routine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I added a few of them, and I didn't even look that hard, there's plenty more sources to go off of. Smile Lee (talk)
        • Reply - you didn't look very hard either, more reviews and travel guides, none of which establish notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH. You are missing the point regarding proper sourcing for restaurants- reviews, best of lists, directories, now open listings and all other WP:Routine coverage only provides that the place is WP:Verifiable. You need quality sources that are about the chain, not the poor quality listings that you have provided. You need articles that are about the chain, and when I say about the chain I mean articles that discuss its history in depth, it business model and other structures related to it. These other sources you keep adding aren't worth the paper they were printed on regarding notability. Remember that sources that are reliable do not automatically confer notability to a subject simply because said source is inherently reliable. You need quality, not quantity, and so far you have not provided the required quality sources. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response added another source, and an appearance in popular culture. My point in saying "I didn't even look that hard", was to say that finding more references, wouldn't be difficult. I'm not going to devote all of my efforts into this, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Smile Lee (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smile Lee and Unician. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-known chain with lasting significance in New Mexican cuisine, and I think that enough sources (including some from outside New Mexico) have been supplied to establish this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' The most reliable source, the Washington Post article is incompatible with Smile Lee's explanation. It reads "The restaurants are also national, with locations in Santa Fe and Albuquerque called Little Anita's -- named after one of Mrs. Tellez's granddaughters -- and owned by their oldest son, Larry Gutierrez. Another son, Michael, owns an Anita's in Orange County, Calif." I don't know what can be clearer than that to prove that they are all o branches of a chain, operated by various family members, where some of the branches use a variant name. Why not write an article on the whole group, following what the sources say, instead of innsisting on writing an article as if each part were completely separate. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The Washington Post is correct, Anita Tellez's "restaurants are also national". But, it also describes that they are different entities, owned by separate individuals; "Anita's New Mexico Style" by Anita Tellez in Virginia and D.C., "Little Anita's" by Larry Gutierrez in New Mexico, and Anita's by Michael Tellez in Fullerton, California. I can find plenty of secondary sources for articles on "Little Anita's", "Anita's New Mexico Style", and Anita Tellez, but after searching a bit I have found a few for "Anita's" in Fullerton, California. All of the sources concur that they are separate entities, that all share a matriarch, Anita Tellez, that connects them. Here's what I can find about Anita's in California; [46] and [47]. Again, they all recognize that they are separate entities; "Anita's New Mexico Style" and "Little Anita's" are two different chains, and Anita's was a standalone restaurant in California that is now closed. Smile Lee (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Unician concurred, I'm not stating opinion, these are simple facts. Smile Lee (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anita moved from New Mexico to the Washington, DC, metro area and founded the DC-area restaurants under the name “Anita's”. (More specifically, they're all located in Northern Virginia.) I don't believe there was ever a national headquarters corporation offering the name, style, menu, and reputation for sale to local investors across the country, as would be the case for a generic franchise chain. Anita was personally visible at her restaurants, and one could often tell if she was there even before walking in the door by the presence of her signature British car parked outside. I don't know if this is still technically a “family business”, especially since the passing of Anita herself, but it doesn't fall under the category of a nationwide franchise.  Unician ∇  14:25, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

El Modelo[edit]

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

"Contested CSD" from Talk:El Modelo by 180.172.239.231 Smile Lee (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: Nomination reason is insufficient. Also, this restaurant has been covered in multiple magazines, newspapers, and websites; from within its home state and elsewhere. It is extremely important to the history of New Mexican cuisine, and its restaurant culture. Smile Lee (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Found another recent accolade, from Travel + Leisure, and added it to the article. There are plenty of digitally available sources, local and national, that are incorporated into this article; since the subject of this article has been around for quite some time, I can imagine that a good majority of sources will be non-digital. Smile Lee (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smile Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocterCox (talk • contribs) 12:57, 29 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 29. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 12:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:A7, which certainly doesn't apply now, and under WP:G11 (advertising), which also doesn't seem to apply. The restaurant has received positive reviews, which we can report faithfully without our article constituting advertising. For example, the phrase “critically acclaimed tamales” in the article may seem promotional, but it seems to be an accurate report, as that one sentence cites four sources, the first one of which says “In New Mexico, perhaps no one makes tamales as revered as El Modelo”.
    Erasing the template is not the preferred way to contest speedy deletion, but I don't believe it's sufficient cause to bring the article to AfD. The article now may be of modest size, but it's well structured, and well sourced, citing reputable sources such as USA Today (more than once) and Travel + Leisure. There are no obvious problems, and while there may always be subtle issues which aren't obvious, there's nothing so wrong with the article that it can never be fixed and must be deleted.
    Finally, the article is not yet 24 hours old. It's off to a good start. We should keep it.
     Unician ∇  16:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are largely listings in travel guides, which do not establish solid notability. Inclusion in top-ten lists and similar specifically does not establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. One of the USA Today listings is local and lists the restaurant as 7th 4th of 10. The other is a passing mention of less than a sentence. The Travel + Leisure listing is likewise a relatively short blurb in a list of 32, although it is nation-wide, so that's something. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the USA Today references corroborate local and national attention, American Culinary Federation does so as well, as does Travel + Leisure. And, The Weekly Alibi is a pretty modern and significantly sized article, that does not simply repeat blurbs. And, the fact that they have been in continuous operation since 1929, should also be considered; meaning there are probably multiple non-digital references that are not in the article. An article that needs to be fixed or expanded, does not mean it calls for deletion. Thus why its a stub. Smile Lee (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A source can only corroborate other sources if they exist and are included in the article. If there are other, offline sources, they need to be included. Google's newspaper archives didn't turn up a single hit, which leaves me a little skeptical that much is going to turn up, but I admit that's hardly definitive. I don't think those archives include the Albuquerque Tribune, which is a pretty big gap. So yeah, there very well could be stuff out there, but I'm not sure why we should have non-notable article on the contingency that sources might eventually surface.
The Weekly Alibi is a review in a local paper, and does not, in my opinion, establish national significance. It's a review in a weekly which publish at least one restaurant review per issue, if not more. How many hundreds of restaurants have they reviewed over the years? That source should be used in the article, but it doesn't do an adequate job of establishing notability. The Google link to the American Culinary Federation is not fully viewable to me for some reason, but it does say that El Modelo is only mentioned on two pages, one of which appears to be passing, so I'm not sure what to make of that. I stand by my original opinion. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you removed are indeed self-published sources, but this is not a bio of a living person, and as such they can be included to back these claims. They are also published by professional writers working in the relevant field that have previously been published by reliable third-party publications, Andrew Romano and Gil Garduño, they are relevant to establishing notability. Also, I never claimed that the Weekly Alibi added to notability. The American Culinary Federation is not fully available on Google, I also found a couple older articles from the Albuquerque Journal. Smile Lee (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPS, self published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." That doesn't exclusivly apply to BLPs. Romano may be a professional writer, but his article was not published under any sort of editorial oversight. Garduño was interviewed for an article about his blog, that is not the same as having been published by 3rd party sources. I don't believe either source should be used, especially not to establish notability. WP:GNG emphasizes editorial oversight as part of reliability. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Though this shouldn't be discussed on the AfD page, I will post about it on the Talk page of the main article, this just shows that the article simply needs to be worked on. Smile Lee (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The restaurant does not meet the standards of WP:Notability as established in WP:CORPDEPTH because all the sources provided fall under WP:Routine or are WP:Primary. (Routine coverage in this case refers to reviews, top 10 lists, travel guide coverage and best of lists, even in national publications) They consist almost exclusively of reviews, listings from travel guides, or from local business directories; not one of the sources is actually about the company itself. Yes some of the sources provided are unto themselves reliable, however the reliability of the source does not connote automatic notability on the subject. While the restaurant is local and local restaurants can be notable, these sources are not sufficient to prove its notability, which means it has to go. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Alibi article is about the company itself, so are the Gil Garduño and Andrew Romano articles, and being listed as one of the Best Mexican Restaurants in the U.S. by Travel + Leisure is not routine. Smile Lee (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Copy and paste of my response from anita's:
You are missing the point regarding proper sourcing for restaurants- reviews, best of lists, directories, now open listings and all other WP:Routine coverage only provides that the place is WP:Verifiable. You need quality sources that are about the chain, not the poor quality listings that you have provided. You need articles that are about the chain, and when I say about the chain I mean articles that discuss its history in depth, it business model and other structures related to it. These other sources you keep adding aren't worth the paper they were printed on regarding notability. Remember that sources that are reliable do not automatically confer notability to a subject simply because said source is inherently reliable. You need quality, not quantity, and so far you have not provided the required quality sources. E.G. just because Roger Ebert reviewed some movie does not make that movie notable because Roger Ebert reviewed it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're entitled to your opinion, but being voted among the Best Mexican Restaurant by T + L is not routine, being mentioned by USAToday twice is not routine. And, that Alibi article is significant in length, and is no where near routine, as it is not a simple review, as it covers the topic in depth. You're right, Roger Ebert reviewing a movie does not make it notable, but on the opposite side of the coin, a review by that high caliber a reviewer is not routine; though his reviews are not usually as in depth as Gil's and Alibi's are in this case. Smile Lee (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Gil's and Alibi's are in depth reviews that detail the history, cultural importance, and foods of the restaurant. And as for the USAToday and Travel + Leisure listings/reviews, as per WP:TRIVCOV, "the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions". Smile Lee (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Unician and Smile Lee. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage here is significant enough to pass WP:GNG. The reviews and write-ups in magazines and travel guides are beyond the scope of "passing mention" of "directory listing" and WP:GNG makes no discrimination of opinion pieces. --Oakshade (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are all missing the point, reviews fall under WP:Routine - that is this is a routine thing that all local publications do and notability is thus not established because all restaurants are reviewed at one point or another. Reviews are fluff pieces that do not garner the same rigorous standards of editorial oversight that you see in quality sources. They, by their nature, are usually full of word of mouth or primary sources that are being parroted back as filler in the reviews. When it comes down to it, they are pure subject pieces that do not have the rigorous oversight of more traditional news stories found in the news or business section of publications. Travel guides fall under WP:Directory, they are a listing of businesses within a locality and thus they do not establish notability. Finally, WP:Notability states that publication by a reliable source does not automatically confer notability because of the of those points I just listed. You need to find quality sources that present why the subject is notable, these sources are not quality. Having a bunch of trivial sources also does not confer notability because a pile of trash is still composed of lots of pieces of trash. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - Not all reviews are routine, in much the same way that not all reliable sources confer notability. The content of the works must be taken into account. Being voted "Best Mexican Restaurants in the U.S." by Travel + Leisure is not routine, nor is the length and breadth to which it was covered by Alibi, Gil Garduño, and Andrew Romano. Even if they are, as you claim, "full of word of mouth or primary sources that are being parroted" does not equate them to being trivial, as they are in-depth non-primary sources in and of themselves. Your free to remove any directory listings if you wish, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but none of the sources are purely in list format meaning the edits might be reverted, but that's an entirely different matter. I take exception to your final statement; but, yes, a pile of trash is still composed of lots of pieces of trash. Smile Lee (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto what Smile Lee said. Just adding that WP:Routine is a qualifier on the WP:EVENTS guideline page anyway. I fail to see how a restaurant is an event. Also, while many travel guides have directory listings, in many cases as with this, it's a reliable source that gives in-depth and significant coverage to many subjects, as some do to this topic. Just because there are directory aspects to some travel guides, that doesn't make the significant coverage they have magically disappear. --Oakshade (talk) 15:52, 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 deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vault 106[edit]

Vault 106 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable record label - the only source in this article is their own webpage. A google search doesn't return much Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Gongshow   talk 16:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Nice idea though. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 5 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. As so often, all the SPA activity does is to emphasize the real lack of notability for either the person or the organization. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mushtaq Pahalgami[edit]

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

appears non-notable. Most references given appear to only mention them in passing, or are self-published or blogs. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Appears to not be notable. The regional paper is in English and availble online, and a Google search reveals several mentions, all of which are merely quotes on various events. Can't find anything that gives signifigant coverage.

Reventtalk 07:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notable External Links/Redirects

full list

http://www.risingkashmir.com/clean-our-environs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/mar/31/environment-hazard-40.asp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manzoor Deen (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS, and WP:ROUTINE, then cite some reliable sources instead of the unreliable ones you have provided above. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete; As for coverage by national dailies, anybody familiar with the politics of J&K would know News from the valley hardly finds mention in the mainstream media here; not even the blatant everyday human rights violations, forget RTI and Environment! Th page is important to document whatever efforts local civil society organizations are making for development despite the turmoil and the general political background and context. There are sources outside print that can verify the information given in the article though; Journalists from local newspapers, covering Pahalgam can be contacted for the same. Samar khurshid (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Samar[reply]

  • It should stay this is very needful for information about the environment, Right to information act and Public Service Guarantee Act .all information is available on above mentioned links or www.hwopahalgam.tk

ghulam nabi magray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.54.114 (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — 59.89.54.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Do not Delete, The following are the details of coverage of the individual's and his organization's activities by local newspapers; unfortunately these papers do not maintain an e-version archive but their websites are being mentioned alongwith details of the write-ups so that the newspaper can be contacted for verification.

1. 'Pahalgam mein nasha aur tambaku mukhalif seminar munaqqad hua', Srinagar, 05th June, 2013, in Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 2. 'Tons of garbage being dumped on banks of Tulyan Canal', Kashmir Times, Srinagar, 17th of May, 2013, ref. www.kashmirtimes.com 3. 'Pahalgam tent union ka aham ijlaas munaqqad', 27th May, 2014, Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 4. 'Pahalgam ke ghodebanon ko waajib ul qadar raqam wa guzar kee jaye', 31-05-2010, Srinagar Times, ref. www.srinagartimes.net 5. 'glacieron ke phighalne se mahaulyati tawazun bigadne ka imkaan', 15-03-2010, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/ 6. 'Pahalgam ke wildlife zone mein ghair-qanooni taamiraat', 08-02-10, Daily Aftab, Srinagar 7. 'Pahalgam mein rihaish-pazeer aabaadi ke liye master-plan 2004-05 dard-e sar', 11-03-10, Kashmir News Service, ref. http://www.knskashmir.com/ 8. 'Pahalgam mein Higher-Secondary ko degree college ka darja dene ke khilaf logon ne kiya muzahira', Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned] 9. 'Pahalgam mein Master-plan ki khilaafwarzi kar ke mukhtalif maqaamaat par hotelon ki taameer tezi se jaari', 02/01/10, Hind Samachar, ref. www.hindsamachar.in/ 10. 'Pahalgam mein hukumat ki jaanib se taamirati kamon aur rihaishi makaanat ki marammat par mukammal pabandi', 12/01/11, Ittelaat, Kashmir, ref. [website taken down, newspaper banned] Simin akhter (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Simin Akhter[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain, mushtaq pahalgami lives in jammu and kashmir, s Pahalgam region, spends all time with needy and poor of paha area, he work for preservation of kashmir, s famous and biggest glaceier Kolhai, he work for preservation of Himalayas crystal clear lake especially for sheshnag lake,harbagwani lake,tarsar lake, marsar lake, sunsar lake, munwarsar lake,etc.he deserve for a part this wikipedia page, Anil Pahalgam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Pahalgam (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) struck duplicate !vote --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Anil Pahalgam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Retain Just added more local language references. Kindly consider. Simin Akhter Simin akhter (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC) struck duplicate !vote --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The Urdu language sources look credible. I'd request other editors to reconsider their opinion in the light of the cited references by Simin Akhter above, references 3 to 10. Asrar aalam (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Mushtaq seems to only be notable through activities of the organization and lacks an independent claim of notability outside that scope. Looking through the sources presented on the article talk page, those appear to simply quote members of the HWO as story sources, thus failing WP:ORGDEPTH, precluding moving the article and changing it's focus at this stage. Dolescum (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete, kindly refer to the urdu language references for the individual's contribution in and beyond his organization's activities.Asrar aalam (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)striking duplicate !vote. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a 'letter to the editor' published on a website it not evidence of notability. Reventtalk 00:17, 6 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of the refs provided here or in the article are RS, the links to news websites are exclusively letters to the editor and not articles--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 10:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete refer to urdu language sources, urdu language is a official language of jammu and kashmir state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayaz pahalgam (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deserving for stay page http://www.risingkashmir.com/clean-our-environs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) 03:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC) — Rahman ganai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Having had a 'letter to the editor' published is not evidence of notability. Reventtalk 00:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidences kindly be keep above said page permanent there ,and already i seen three websites and more and more links is ready for reference.is it deserving for staying here.

  • Delete This article is really about the Himalayan Welfare Organization, not about Mushtaq Pahalgami, although he founded it and appears to be its prime mover. Were there more coverage of the organization, I would suggest renaming/rewriting, but the organization currently fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. It does not matter how hard someone works, or how noble the cause, notability is granted by in depth coverage in independent, reliable publications. That kind of coverage is not found here in letters to the editor, press releases, and articles about the environmental problems. --Bejnar (talk) 04:22, 5 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Wikipedia[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the article doesn't include any third-party sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Twice relisted, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crowe (band)[edit]

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

Band with no strong claim to meeting WP:NMUSIC, with its notability claim resting exclusively on local radio airplay and campus radio charts in their own home media market, and with no reliable sourcing to demonstrate that they belong in an encyclopedia, relying exclusively on primary sources and non-notable blogs. It also bears mention that the article was created and has been edited mainly by User:Crowemusic, thus constituting a conflict of interest. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources, supporting a real claim of notability, can be located to salvage the article with — but in this form it's a clear delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, buffbills7701 22:05, 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, Davewild (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:49, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Yoon[edit]

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

Promotional page. Notability not established - serious case of look at me. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, please google him, he is a famous artist and very well known in Malaysia. I can upload newspapers for you to see if you still don't believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdlee561 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 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 deckertalk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mayweather Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Single professional fight - does not meet WP:NBOX. Family relation to some notable boxers has no relevance since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Peter Rehse (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One professional fight. Fails NBOX and GNG. Notability is not inherited.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. His claim to notability is having a famous father, but notability is not inherited at WP. Papaursa (talk) 17:33, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Beins[edit]

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

Promotional page of martial arts teacher. Reads like an advert but no evidence of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Primary sourced promo piece, did a 2 minute tidy but unlikely to be salvageable. --Natet/c 10:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 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. Redirected to Proverb by Sulaimandaud. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of proverb[edit]

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

There is a detailed article on proverb Sulaimandaud (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A10 - I'm also not convinced that the title is a likely search term. Ansh666 21:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Wikipedia proverb: Article without indefinite article should be deleted as unlikely search option. Not speedily as it's not a duplication, merely a crappy list. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 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. Michig (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Konopisos[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. His only claims to notability are bit roles in notable films, no sources provided (or found) that suggest notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commentary - Seems to have an award at the Bare Bones International Film Festival, which has been described as "a small town festival" in its article. Also I am not sure if the award(s) he received are individually for him or for the films. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak delete, I'm tending towards delete. I fail to understand how a 'notable', 'award winning' actor and director gets zero news coverage. I found one Houston Chronicle article (The Waiter (film) was filmed in Houston) which verifies Konopisos exists, though is almost entirely about the film's main star Charles Durning. I can only presume from the lack of coverage that the awards received by The Waiter and Konopisos were very minor. Sionk (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor filmmaker and actor who has not received widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article creator (User:Hashmi, Usman) is also blocked and thought to be a sock. Just throwing that in there. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary - Jason Konopisos is a hack who hasn't produced anything that is commercially viable in the entertainment industry. His page is his spin from five years ago and time has shown it was really nothing but spin. Many of the relevant people in the entertainment industry he was friends with have since cut ties with him. just another product of the "Austin Film Scene." Carbonflyer (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point of the above comment, except to prove that Konopisos is notable in Carbonflyer's head. However, having such singular notability does not provide an argument for keeping the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 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. Michig (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wickerham[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. No sources that suggest notability, and the only claims to notability are projects he had minor roles in. All the sources are either IMDB links or a passing mention on a blog. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary - Ryan Wickerham is a hack who hasn't produced anything that is commercially viable in the entertainment industry and has actually cost his investors severe losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars. His page was spin he provided from five years ago and time has shown it was really nothing but spin, Sorry I ever posted it. About the only thing recently published about him online is his assault conviction and subsequent appeal.http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=03-13-00747-CR Just another product of the "Austin Film Scene." Carbonflyer (talk) 14:18, 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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

24 Hours City Florist[edit]

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

An article on a Singapore florist shop, submitted multiple times by a declared paid-editor. Previous versions (under names closer to what appears to be the actual firm name) were speedy-deleted: 24Hrs City Florist and 24 Hrs City Florist. A CSD A7 has been declined this time, so I am bringing it to AfD for a persistent decision. It is a firm going about its business, but the offered references are a mix of PR and directory listings, and I don't see these or the claimed awards as providing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariathas Manojanraj[edit]

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

I dont see the notability here the person was just a delivery man not a journalist. it says that his death was part of a series of killing of Tamil media workers, what makes this persons death stand out compared to the other people who had died? Redsky89 (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Number of mentions in Reporters without borders, local newspapers and other Human Rights NGO's. Kanatonian (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - His death was mentioned in number of media and a blow to a delivery man in the media industry, should be considered as a blow to the media industry itself; it should not be considered as another person's death of the ill-fated Sri Lankan Tamil community.Lapmaster (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of the references cited only one of the links appears to be working. Without being able to verify those references there doesn't appear to be sufficient independent sources to establish notability of the subject.Dan arndt (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out and have fixed 9 references will do some more.It is nearly 7 years since the article was created and the links added.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:46, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Mamari[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth A. Loparo[edit]

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

This appear to be an autobiography. It's largely self-promotional and does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that he does pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of Google Scholar, but I would welcome some feedback from people who know more about his field. I also can't determine if he passes WP:Prof#C5. He does not appear to be a distinguished professor but I'm not sure what a "Nord Professor" is. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly an endowed chair of precisely the type described by #C5. That's what it means to be called by something of the form "X Professor" where X looks like the name of a person or company. (Distinguished Professor, University Professor, etc. are something different but comparable in the level of distinction they convey.) If you aren't familiar with this convention, perhaps guessing which of our articles on academics are worth keeping might not be your strength. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is an IEEE Fellow, which is the example used at WP:PROF#C3. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. I'm not familiar enough with citation patterns in this branch of EE to say whether they are typically low or high but seven papers with over 100 cites each should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 regardless. And the passes of #C3 and #C5 have already been well demonstrated above. The autobiography issue is indeed a problem, but the article seems reasonably factual and neutral despite that (although perhaps the listing of minor awards could be trimmed); the article creator should be admonished to concentrate his Wikipedia editing on subjects where his expertise can be helpful without having so much of a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of cites in Google scholar, passes WP:Prof#C5 also. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As an endowed chair and department chair of a major university and a fellow member of the IEEE, he is surely notable. He has won awards for both his research and his teaching. —teb728 t c 06:40, 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 No consensus. I must admit that my sympathies are with the "delete" !votes here, as I see nothing really encyclopedic in the current article. However, at this point there is essentially no consensus, leaning to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dodge[edit]

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

This guy falls far short of notability for either military or sportspeople. Mostly the article is built around interviews with him, which generally fail as reliable sources. This is the type of thing that gets one-time coverage as a feel good human interest story, but lacks any permanent, encyclopedic value.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 29 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, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This individual has received in-depth coverage in multiple major news sources, more than sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and WP:NCOLLATH ("been the subject of non-trivial media coverage"). Examples include (1) this feature story from ESPN.com, a major national media outlet (2) this feature story from USA Today, another national media outlet, (3) this nationally televised feature story on Dodge from College Game Day, (4) this feature story from the Houston Chronicle, the largest daily newspaper in Texas, (5) this syndicated feature story from the Associated Press, (6) "Dodge receives Tillman Patriot award, other football honors, Reno Gazette-Journal, Dec 6, 2007, (7) this feature on UWire, and (8) this from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Cbl62's analysis above there is significant coverage in multiple, indepedent, reliable sources more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. This coverage is about as solid as it gets; there are several feature articles in major national and regional media outlets. The specific notability guidelines of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON do not come into play. Given the quality of the sources available, the subject deserves a better encyclopedia article than the hagiographic bio that now exists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really can see absolutely no reason why this individual should be considered notable. The media coverage comprises human interest stories only. That doesn't make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is essentially trivial, and he has only gained attention because of his involvement in 9/11. Subject has not actually done anything that is noteworthy.TheLongTone (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Apparently, we have different definitions of what constitutes "trivial." Which of these feature articles in a major publication do you deem to be "trivial"?
  • feature story - Houston Chronicle, primary newspaper serving the fourth largest city in the United States;
  • feature story - ESPN.com, website of the largest TV sports network in the United States, which dominates coverage of college and professional sports;
  • feature story - USA Today, a national newspaper with the largest print circulation of any newspaper in the United States; or
  • feature story - Associated Press, the largest news wire service in the United States, and one of the two largest English-language wire services in the world (the other being Reuters).
Did you read the linked articles? Are you familiar with these sources? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, these are all just human interest stories. He is a former college football player who happens to have previously served in the army and been at the Pentagon when it was attacked. The papers have picked up on this and decided to write stories about him. It doesn't matter how significant those papers or other media outlets are. Yes, he may have an interesting story to tell, as many military veterans do, but this does not make him notable in Wikipedia terms. He is notable neither as a sportsman (since he has not played professionally) nor as a military veteran (since he was not a senior officer and has not been awarded any significant decorations). He's just a bloke who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and then played a sport for his university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Dodge was a two-year starting linebacker on one of the major NCAA Division I college football teams. Dodge received, over a period of five or more years, repeated significant coverage, including feature articles, in major national and regional publications and media outlets. That more than satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I urge you to review the linked GNG guidelines; there is no requirement that anyone have done "something noteworthy" in order to be "notable." Wikipedia's concept of notability is based on the depth and quality of coverage of the subject, not on any particular accomplishment or noteworthiness of the subject. If necessary, I am more than willing to post the GNG guidelines on this AfD page for ease of reference. You are arguing from a viewpoint that is not supported by the applicable Wikipedia guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Playing sport at university level is not sufficient for notability. This is long established. As to the GNG, yes we all know what they say. However, whether Dodge qualifies for an article under GNG would depend on your definition of "significant coverage". "A lot" does not necessarily equate to "significant". Local politicians, for instance, get a lot of media coverage, but it is routine coverage. It is not generally considered sufficient for notability on Wikipedia (and this has been held to be the case many times in AfDs). Dodge's coverage is merely human interest coverage. It is because he has an interesting story. It does not, however, equate to significant coverage, which would make him notable in our terms. It could, in fact, be said to come under WP:ONEEVENT, since it is primarily about his involvement in the Pentagon attack. If he had not gone on to play college football with a well-known team then his involvement would have been considered no more notable than the involvement of anyone else who was peripherally involved in the incident. It goes like this: lots of people like American football, the Pentagon attack was a notable incident and people are naturally interested in that too, an American football player (although one not notable enough for an article for his involvement in the sport) was involved in the attack, so the media have written articles about him because they know that it's a good human interest story because it combines two of America's big interests. But that fact still doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, what we have here is the result of a specific combination of several important US-related topics: 9/11, football and military service. It's essentially a chance conflation of several very "all-American" ideals focused on one individual. If all that was needed was mere media coverage, we wouldn't have notability guidelines in specific fields. Setting those aside in this case feels like you're missing the "presumed"-part of WP:GNG.
Peter Isotalo 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you're missing the part where the specific notability guidelines impart nothing more than a presumption of notability, too. It is well established that the specific notability guidelines are not exclusive, but are simply rules of thumb that permit a quicker analysis while avoiding a full-fledged GNG analysis. For any subject that passes a full-blown GNG analysis, the specific guidelines are moot. It's a dirty little secret that many subjects that are presumed notable under the specific guidelines could never pass GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Specific guidelines give us more guidance in cases like this than the purely procedural general notability guidelines. General notability should be the start of the discussion, not the end of it. What you're arguing for in my view that is coverage, regardless of its nature, confers automatic notability. I can see no "full-blown" analysis. In my view, this isn't any different from routine coverage of local politicians mentioned by Necrothesp. When a minimum of critical analysis is applied to this, this topic fails in every single aspect, especially when WP:ONEEVENT (9/11) is taken into consideration.
Peter Isotalo 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62 and Dirtlawyer1's excellent arguments and research. As noted, WP:GNG trumps all other WikiProject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Significant coverage means the coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Routine coverage that a local politician gets is mainly about something he is involved in, and the coverage does not address him directly and in detail. However, if a local politician has two or more detailed biographic articles in different reputable books, or non-local feature news stories, can we say these articles contain nothing but routine coverage? Certainly we can't. The same logic applies here.
After reading the long discussion above, I suspect each "notable" in Necrothesp's comment can be substituted with "famous", "important" or "successful". (For exapmle, "Playing sport only at university level is not a success.") But WP:GNG points out that determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
I raised a question on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Additional criteria yesterday. (Actually before the debate began, what a coincidence!) And I'll !vote keep unless we reach a different consensus. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. Peter Isotalo 09:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GNG. GNG doesn't care whether the coverage was motivated by human interest; it only asks if there are reliable independent sources that are specifically about the subject of the article. I can't see any way that GNG is not met here. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that WP:ONEEVENT applies, but in this case I don't see a better outcome by applying it -- typically ONEEVENT leads to embedding the information in the sources in the article about the event. Information about Mark Dodge doesn't belong in the 9/11 articles, but given the sources, we should put information about him somewhere. An article about him seems the most sensible choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "[D]oesn't care whether the coverage was motivated by human interest". That's probably the best summary of this being not about bothering to evaluate encyclopedic value but applying a purely textualist analysis of guidelines. And, of course, ignoring that the cited guidelines were originally written to assist in the determination of encyclopedic value. The circle is complete. Peter Isotalo 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right that the guidelines were written to assist in the determination of encyclopaedic value, but I think they were also written to eliminate certain kinds of value judgements -- that certain kinds of topics or coverage were of less value than others. I think this is such a case, and it's not borderline: there are clearly plenty of sources about this person. As I say above, I'm sympathetic to the ONEEVENT argument, but if this discussion were to reach consensus that ONEEVENT applies, where do you feel that would leave us? Where would you then put the material in these sources -- in an article on People made notable only by 9/11? If there is somewhere better for this material to go than the current article, I'd be interested to hear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Guidelines always boil down to value judgements, so I don't see how the value judgement of "coverage exists = notability" is in any way superior. And I don't see why you would ask me about where this "would leave us". Nothing in the article is actually notable to anything but Mark Dodge himself, not 9/11, the US Army or college football. If I don't consider him notable as a person, why should I view the content here as anything other than indiscriminate? If you believe this about more than the life story of Mark Dodge, you should explain exactly what that is. Because I don't see anything here beyond the "human interest"-argument. Peter Isotalo 13:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the disconnect here, I believe, is cultural. All three "delete" voters are from Europe, where college sports are not a major form of athletic competition. College football in the US is, in fact, a big time sport. Texas A&M, where Dodge played, is one of the elite programs, drawing an average of 87,125 fans to each game per this NCAA publication. The program also generates $94 million a year in revenue per this analysis. Most professional sports teams do not come close to these figures. This is not to say that every college football player warrants an article. They do not. But when a player at a big-time college football program like Texas A&M receives in-depth coverage in the mainstream media, as Dodge has, the well-established precedent is that he passes WP:GNG, just the same as any athlete. We ought not allow personal value judgments about particular sports alter that analysis. Dodge is an award-winning college football player at one of the top collegiate programs. See this CBS Sports (major national outlet) feature story about Dodge receiving the Tillman Patriot Award. If we substitute our own value judgment about an athlete's encyclopedic value, we undermine the objective standards that are at the core of WP:GNG and engender never-ending battles about which person, sport, etc. is truly encyclopedic. Given the level of coverage given to Mark Dodge, can anyone truly say with a straight face that he is less notable than a person who played one game in a professional soccer or baseball game and never had a feature story written about them? I don't think so. Likewise, and borrowing Peter's analytical benchmark, can anyone truly say with a straight face that the referenced one-game professional soccer/baseball player is more is any more notable as a person or to his sport than Dodge? Again, I don't think so. Dodge clearly passes WP:GNG, and the contrary value judgments of a handful of "delete" voters should not be allowed to override the extensive in-depth coverage and editorial judgments of the largest media outlets in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to opt out of the Europe vs US-argument, please. I'm very well-versed in the importance of college sports and I am only applying WP:NCOLLATH to that part. The rest is just WP:ONEEVENT. I also took a very similar stand regarding Joachim Cronman, an unremarkable Swedish officer of the lower nobility. He achieved absolutely nothing that has been described outside of standard entries in Swedish nobility directories (similar to Almanach de Gotha). To me, the general argument that any coverage in (otherwise important) sources isn't a convincing argument for inclusion in a encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, my only reason for mentioning European-ness of the "delete" voters is that college sports in Europe are not significant and most Europeans I've talked to are quite surprised (even flummoxed) to find out what a big deal they are in the US. In any event, a college athlete may qualify through either WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH (need not satisfy both). Here, the in-depth and broad coverage of Dodge passes GNG even though some editors may think he's a trivial character. What's important, and the genius behind or GNG standard, is that we look at it objectively, and what is important is that editors of major media outlets have deemed him to be noteworthy; whether you or I find him noteworthy is not the correct benchmark. Also, WP:NCOLLATH expressly states: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Here, the coverage of Dodge is plainly not routine. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WP:ROUTINE coverage" seems like exactly what human interest stories are. But the most convincing argument in my mind is still that his notability argument stem entirely from the coverage itself rather than something applied to any relevant field. Peter Isotalo 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the outdent. Was getting a bit cramped. The coverage of Dodge is not routine. Routine sports coverage would be things like passing mentions in game coverage, inclusion in statistical listings, a very short blurb in a pre-season team profiles, maybe even a short story in the guy's smalltown home newspaper. The coverage of Dodges consists of feature stories that are written about him -- the antithesis of routine coverage. As for your last point, the coverage doesn't just arise from a vacuum and report about nothing. The coverage is principally about two things (1) his role in historic events involving 9/11, and (2) his play for one of the elite football programs in the US. Subjectively, you consider his connection to these events to be trivial, but, again, what matters here is that the editors of major media outlets deemed his role in these events to be sufficiently meaningful and notable that they exercised their editorial judgment in publishing multiple, in-depth feature stories about him. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ.(The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me "gameday features" and the likes are obvious types of "other routine coverage" since it's unrelated to any actual football achievements. If this isn't routine, then what exactly is? We obviously agree that Dodge's athletic records don't meet minimal notability standards. This is also perfectly obvious if you read the coverage in USA Today, ESPN and the Houston Chronicle; all of it is really about 9/11 and military service. So in what way is Dodge notable in relation to 9/11? Are all military personnel who served at one of the crash sites considered notable enough for their own article? Or does this privilege extend only to those who have been college athletes?
Peter Isotalo 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We include topics with significiant coverage in reliable sources and exclude topics without them. We keep deleting local things such as roads, bus routes and shopping malls. Some of these might be rather important in a large city, or even a in state.(such as a shopping mall over 500K sqft) But without reliable sources we don't want to keep them. If some additional judgement should be exercised, should these local things be considered notable because they are "important" to a ceratin degree? No. In my own view, if we made additional judgement, WP:GNG would no longer be objective as it is today. And there is no need to start a discussion on GNG talk page/--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from GNG doesn't require us to determine exactly what aspect of a topic makes it notable; it just asserts that if the editors of multiple reliable sources exercised their judgement and decided that Dodge was worth covering, then Dodge is notable in Wikipedia terms. I see your point about human interest and the lack of any fundamental inherent notability, but it is debates about "inherent notability" that GNG is, in my view, designed to bypass. I understand that you feel some additional judgement should be exercised, rather than a blind adherence to rules, but my reading of GNG differs from yours. I think this might be a good discussion for the GNG talk page, using this AfD as an example, rather than for this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That a highly specific guideline like WP:NCOLLATH is "bypassed" I could somewhat understand, but not that WP:BLP (WP:ONEEVENT is an important part of it) is seen as irrelevant. I'll see if there's interest regarding this at WP:N, though.[48] This AfD seems to be heading towards an obvious no-consensus-keep.
Peter Isotalo 14:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:GNG quite easily I find, through coverage in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a football player or member of the military. Merely playing at a big name school is not enough to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested that "merely playing at a big name school" is enough to show notability. Having feature stories written and broadcast in major national media outlets, however, that is enough under any measure. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:BLP1E and WP:NCOLLATH. He is, for all purposes, a first-hand eyewitness that ticked up higher in interest due to his military carrier and college career. The feature stores linked are basically are as best described human interest stories - he's local, giving his recollection of 9/11, and only because he started playing college football. If these two activities (witnessing 9/11, and playing college football) were done by different people, neither would be notable (per BLP1E and NCOLLATH, respectively), and the fact that it happened to be one person doesn't change that. It would be different if he had something of a remarkable college football carrier but opted not to continue forward with that, but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seemed to disappear otherwise. Note that this is specifically that we have had time since he gave up football to judge sources; if this was about a player just starting or still active in college, I would be more lenient to keeping the article to give time to develop. Here, unless something drastically new happens to him, he's just a witness/helper and a failed college player, and fails notability. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add: specifically BLP1E and NCOLLATH are two of the few notability guidelines that specifically overrule the GNG, specifically because people that fall into these categories may get a wide range of coverage but have no long-term notability. So while the GNG may be met, these two guidelines are stronger in their application here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Masem -- Your comments misstate the facts and established policy and precedent on many levels. First, your assertion that "he's local" is a factual misstatement (unless you consider the United States to be "local"). The coverage is in national media sources of wide circulation. Second, it has never been held that NCOLLATH overrules GNG. To the contrary, it has always been held that a college athlete may qualify under either. Third, there is no BLP issue here. The article is well sourced. Fourth, the coverage is not limited to a single event separate from the individual. The sources cover Dodge's military career and also his participation in college sports which covered more than just a single game or event. Fifth, your characterization of Dodge as a "failed" college athlete is erroneous, as he won All-Big 12 honors in one of the elite conferences. Sixth, and in any event, he passes NCOLLATH in two respects (i) he has "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage," and (ii) he received "national media attention as an individual." Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I am disappointed in your logic (or lack thereof) regarding WP:NCOLLATH. You, as much as anyone, knows that WP:NCOLLATH is not and never has been an exclusive test of notability for American college athletes. NCOLLATH is and always has been backstopped by WP:GNG, just like all of the the other specific guidelines of WP:NSPORTS. Feel free to argue BLP1E, but please let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater. Far more than half of the college athlete AfDs in which I have participated have been decided on the basis of GNG and not NCOLLATH. And we both know that GNG is the harder standard to satisfy. And given your long involvement and sophistication in notability policy and guidelines, I am pretty sure you know this already. As for your characterization of the subject as "a failed college player," well, to be charitable to you, that's simply nonsense. He was a two-year starter at one of the premier NCAA Division I college football programs in one of the two predominant college football conferences. And in case you've missed it, one of the things that makes the subject's story interesting is that he was also a student of non-traditional university age: he was 25 and 26 years old during his two Division I seasons, when he teammates and his opponents were all aged 18 to 23.
As for your assertion that "BLP1E and NCOLLATH are two of the few notability guidelines that specifically overrule the GNG, specifically because people that fall into these categories may get a wide range of coverage but have no long-term notability," well, I urge you to start reviewing every college athlete AfD for the last three years, because the overwhelming majority of them have been wrongly decided if you are correct that NCOLLATH trumps GNG. Your position effectively advocates overturning the established understanding and consensus regarding the relationship of NCOLLATH and GNG. If you really don't know this, then we have far bigger problems than either of us previously understood. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sports guidelines makes it clear that college athletes should only have articles if "the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage", and specifcally warns against local coverage (the Houston Chronicle at this point), allowing the GNG to be overridden (otherwise, we'd have articles on every high school and college athlete). I consider the reporting of this person in USA Today, ESPN and the like as part of ROUTINE - oh, here's a new player, let's discuss him. This was at the start of the career. He only caught the eye of the press because of being tied to 9/11 events. Again, separate out the two, neither aspect alone is notable, and so combining them does not make them notable either. Because he left sports, there's nothing more to this person, and thus he has no enduring notability. Ergo, deletion is proper. And to add that a key element of the GNG is enduring coverage, and the bulk of coverage being pulled from is a few months in 2006. Nothing of significance since. That screams even more of a second BLP1E issue - his signing to play on the Augies being highlighted by the press - as a problem. Just because we can document someone doesn't mean they necessarily have to have an article. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Your interpretation of NCOLLATH is erroneous. The mention of WP:ROUTINE is simply to clarify what constitutes routine coverage in the context of college sports. Post-game summaries are routine. Pre-game and post-game quotes from players are routine. Major feature articles carried in national newspapers such as USA Today are not "routine."
Furthermore, Houston, Texas is the fourth largest city in the United States, with a metropolitan area of more than 6 million people. Texas A&M University is not located in Houston, but in College Station, Texas. Saying that coverage in the Houston Chronicle is "local" is like suggesting coverage of Oxford in the London newspapers is "local." The hometown newspaper for Texas A&M is The Bryan-College Station Eagle, not the Houston Chronicle in a distinctly different city 100 miles away. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough to be local - that is, while there is University of Houston that I'm sure the Houston Chronicle covers, it's also going to cover other local colleges (which, 100 mi in Texas, is nothing). But my point for deletion does not rest heavily on the local issue, but as a routine issue and even thinking about it more, implied inherited notability ("oh, here's a new athlete that was tied to 9/11, great human interest story!") He left sports and has done nothing since in the 6-7 years. No enduring notability, ergo, we should not be covering them. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer, Cb162, regarding WP:NCOLLATH: if you want to argue that someone is notable according to topic-specific guidelines, you have to apply logical consistency. Topic-specific criteria obviously refer to topic-specific achievements (sports). Otherwise you could just as easily claim that Dodge is also a notable soldier (according to WP:MILHIST), which is obviously not the case.
Peter Isotalo 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is logical consistency -- have you even read NCOLLATH? One of the topic-specific criteria, subpart (3), is a college athlete who has: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." As discussed above, Dodge has received such national coverage. We're going in circles now. Also, as Dirtlawyer has noted, established policy and precedent confirm that passing WP:GNG is enough, and Dodge does that. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason they're called "Human interest stories". Yes, he had several articles that were specifically about him, but over a very short period of time and specifically more on because he was 9/11. That's it - he's a good Samaritan for sure, but that's it. National news will do this all the time on slow news days, dedicating a short article or segment to a feel-good or humorous story that would put the person int the national spotlight for a brief moment. That's why BLP1E is the big player here - we don't include articles when the coverage is like that, and that's what this clearly is. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the crucial qualification in the juxtaposition of "individual" and "notable team". That basically screams "coverage as a sportsperson". You're claiming it means simply "gained national media attention", which is a very selective reading.
Peter Isotalo 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Masem and Peter are proposing is a radical departure from existing precedent and consensus under which the sport projects have operated for as long as I have been involved (3+ years). This is no "tweak," fellas; it would dramatically change what subjects have stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and open hundreds if not thousands of existing articles to deletion. Cbl62 and I are only two of dozens of editors who will want to voice their opinions on point; neither of us has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the impacted content creators and affected Wikiprojects, many of whom had a say in the existing consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH and the other specific NSPORTS guidelines. This is not something that will be settled by four editors on an obscure talk page. A reinterpretation of the nature advocated by Peter and Masem will require a full-blown RfC, with community wide notice to all affected WikiProjects. This is not something that can be jammed through; existing precedent and consensus do not support you. I urge both of you to think this through; there is a lot more at stake than one article the two of you don't like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note, for the record, that there is no "human interest story" exception to the GNG requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. You guys are way, way, way out on a limb by yourselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are trying to interpret actual notability guidelines, which is how consensus is supposed to be described. Disagreements might indicate that consensus isn't accurately described. Or that it might have changed. Who knows? If you have specific examples that you feel support the arguments for keeping this articles, please share those examples. Expressing general alarm over a specific article and throwing about WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't really help here. Peter Isotalo 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, Peter, I will be very specific: Please direct our attention to any of the applicable guidelines where the phrase "human interest story" is used. We'll start there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability covers the idea of human interest stories via the idea of looking for enduring coverage. There is always stories about a "person of the week" or the like that is meant to make the reader/viewer feel good , but that's it. It'll get wide coverage for a short bit of time and then disappear. That's exactly the case here. There's no enduring coverage (dismissing the college footplay play states as routine). --MASEM (t) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, in answer to my question immediately above your answer, the phrase "human interest story" does not appear in any of the applicable guidelines. Your answer represents an evasion and a failure to answer that very simple and direct question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've discussed this at some length, though. It's clearly a matter of interpretation of existing guidelines and not all that remarkable. The claims about thousands of articles deleted, multiple WikiProjects affected, community wide notices required, etc. are pretty remarkable statements, though. It's not something anyone can simply search for or look up. That's why examples would be appropriate. Peter Isotalo 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, Peter, we have. And you refuse to acknowledge that the phrase "human interest story" has no basis in the applicable guidelines. You're winging it, and it shows. Have you reviewed the Frequently Asked Questions from the top of the NSPORTS page yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the Frequently Asked Questions menu at the top of WP:NSPORTS:

"Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

"A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

I think that's relatively clear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the point that you're ignoring is that so-called national coverage is non-enduring, human interest stories that extend from BLP1E, and thus the GNG is not met either. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you're perfectly free to make the BLP1E argument, Masem. I won't even fight it if you can get a consensus to agree with you. But turning the accepted consensus interpretation of NCOLLATH inside out in order to delete a single article is foolish and will do nothing but create instability and aggravation for everyone who works with American college sports articles and everyone who works with the NSPORTS guidelines. BTW, I really wish you would acknowledge that there is no basis in the text of the applicable guidelines regarding your "human interest story" exception. You're winging it, and you need to drop back and view the Big Picture. As law professors like to say, "Bad facts make bad law," and you're trying to twist the rules in order to achieve a single desired outcome with precious little consideration of the larger consequences. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want the big picture? This guy, who just happened to be at a famous event, and happened to play college-level sports for a few years and and then stepped out of the spotlight, is a nobody in the big picture. We shouldn't have an article about him per WP:NOT/WP:IINFO. As you are trying to argue keeping it under some attempt to wiggle policy/guidelines for it, I'm explaining the broad picture that people who's primary claim to fame is being featured in human interest stories (and only that) are not notable per GNG and per BLP1E. That's the big picture. Yes, our guidelines don't explicitly say that but look at the big picture, and you'll see why we don't need an article here. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have different Big Pictures. My primary concern is a stable interpretation of NCOLLATH, not a new one that throws into question the notability of hundreds of existing college athlete articles. Yours is the suitability of Mark Dodge for inclusion as a stand-alone article because you see it as an American conflation of 9/11, the U.S. military and college sports. You don't need to reinterpret or misinterpret NCOLLATH to make that argument. If you make a good enough GNG/BLP1E argument, you may even get me to agree with you. But if you want a different interpretation of NCOLLATH, you are three or four years too late, and should have been participating in the hundreds of AfDs that gave practical meaning to the words of NCOLLATH. Its meaning is well established, and in the absence of language that explicitly says NCOLLATH trumps GNG, you've already lost that argument by not participating in the many, many AfD discussions that rejected that interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this out of the way, whether the NCOLLATH (or more specifically NSPORTS) trumps the GNG is not a factor here because I will admit that the 3 national papers aren't local or routine. But in a different case, NSPORTS does override the GNG when the only sources are local or routine (which the GNG is silent on otherwise). But that's not the discussion for this AFD.
As pointed out elsewhere, we have a person that has two separate things that might be tied to notability: the 9/11 activity, and being in college sports. The latter has been proven as a non-notable career (that seems to not be in question from the above). The 9/11 activity is simply BLP1E, being someone that just happened to be there, so that's non-notable. Together, two non-notable aspects would make for a non-notable person. The only reason there's an issue is that we have three national sources that happened to pick up on this feel-good human interest story. But if those same sources existed without this person playing in college (say, the same articles but written a week after 9/11) we'd still delete the article per BLP1E. The only reason his story was picked up appears to be a human interest, and once it was covered once, there was no further coverage, therefore no enduring coverage. So therefore the GNG is failed as well as BLP1E as well as the specific criteria of NCOLLATH. Just because there are three national sources does not make the person notable due to other reasons relating to how we cover persons. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beside remaining extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH is to "provide buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources", I'm with Masem. Arguing to keep this in this case goes against some very basic principles of notability. The arguments to keep come down to pettifogging with undue bias towards sports.
Peter Isotalo 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One good thing has come from this debate. I've learned a new word -- pettifogging. That said, the only pettifogging or bias on display here is an anti-sport bias. GNG is GNG whether a person is a member of a boy band, a local politician, or a business executive. Peter and Masem would have athletes be subjected to a more rigorous test, presumably because they view such endeavors as less worthy. Thankfully, that is not how GNG works. As for the one event bit, a review of the actual sources shows that the coverage extends to the fact that Dodge was an outstanding player (not a failed player as Masem tried to argue before) during his playing career, so much so that he won conference honors as a linebacker. As for Peter being "extremely skeptical to the idea that the purpose of WP:NCOLLATH," the language quoted comes directly from the policy. The bottom line is that Peter and Masem seek not to follow policy and guideline but to override it, because they subjectively view Dodge as unworthy and not encyclopedic. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but the objective policies in place, if followed, require that this article be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Kim Kardashian is not BLP1E either?—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting she only has one "asset" of note? Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sports are already treated with more scrutiny due to the systematic bias in coverage they get. If you take off some of the controls (eg not allowing local/routine sourcing for athletes), we could have articles on every high school and college player in the United States with a bit of effort. NSPORTS was written specifically with such controls in mind, focusing more on professional athletes that have made it their career than people in passing. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all this belligerence and anti-sports nonsense? Did I not specify Joachim Cronman? Are we not discussing one of the most detailed and specific notability guidelines that we have? And what's with this Kardashian-and-"assets" spiel? This is getting unnecessarily ugly.
Peter Isotalo 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources over an extended period starting in 2006. As late as 2008, The New York Times was still making reference to Dodge: "Strongside ‘backer Mark Dodge continued to build upon what was already a great story, earning second-team all-Big 12 honors while leading the team with 117 tackles (5.5 for loss)."[49] While that NYT coverage years later is trivial, the fact it was even still talked about is indicative that notability for Dodge is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Seems some deleters discount the coverage on the grounds that they don't WP:DONTLIKE that the media deals with human interest stories, or is gaining notability from being both a soldier and a football player, and not from one area solely. It's a close argument, but I'll err on the side of keep when in doubt.—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This subject obviously meets the GNG. That being the case, whether he meets NCOLLATH is entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant. The notion that NCOLLATH not only overrules the GNG but that articles that otherwise meet the GNG must fail if they don't satisfy NCOLLATH is the height of absurdity. By that token, there are many thousands of public figures who were undistinguished college athletes. Should the several United States Presidents who fit that category have their articles stricken because they don't satisfy the mighty NCOLLATH? Ridiculous. Ravenswing 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core argument remains that Dodge fails WP:BLP1E. He should be treated like any other 9/11 rescuer or debris-clearer (who would obviously also fail WP:NCOLLATH). Peter Isotalo 07:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this spans more than "one event" -- there are the events of 9/11, and then there are the events involved in handling and processing those events later over time. Apparently he's been called upon by experts to discuss those events of 2001 in 2006, 2007, and 2011. We're beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E. Passing WP:GNG is normally considered enough for notability, even if the subject may fail one or more other notability measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I take away from those that that's just asking for his eyewitness information and not so much for any other "expertise" that he might have offered. It is the equivalent of, say, a person having been charged with a crime where the event is notable but per BLP1E we don't create a separate article for the accused, instead keeping all the details of the trial to the event. As such here, the little that explains what he might have been doing more recently all is still tied to the original event, and BLP1E is still applicable. A way to consider it is if the national articles like the USA Today one were still published, but Dodge was not in college sports and just a person they went back to for 9/11 opinion, this would be a clear no-brainer for deletion per BLP1E. We add in a non-notable college football career that should not change that. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who are the experts you're referring to? Peter Isotalo 20:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Scope of coverage means WP:BLP1E does not apply in a meaningful way. - Dravecky (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, we have nine keep votes (one of the keeps [by 180.172.239.231] is indented, not clearly marked, easy to miss) and five delete votes. Peter and Masem have, in their comments, made every imaginable argument for deletion. Masem, at least, now agrees that the coverage is sufficiently broad in nature (i.e., he no longer contends it's too "local") and is not "routine." Their argument now comes down to the "one event" point. As Dravecky notes, the coverage is too broad to allow BLP1E to be invoked to overrule GNG. The coverage is not, as Masem argues, limited to Dodge being an "eyewitness/helper" to 9/11. It covers his military career and also his successful career as a football player on one of the top tier teams. Masem sought to overcome this by arguing Dodge was a "failed" player, but this is simply untrue. He won conference honors and received coverage for that as well. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 7 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 redirect all to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. Michig (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire Road[edit]

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

Incomplete nomination. I would simply say I prodded this article a while back and still see no reason how it is notable and why it ought to be kept. per WP:EXISTS -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All three roads nominated above can then become redirects with the retention of cultural/historical info per WP:ROADOUTCOMES where appropriate.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book sources from Deryck[edit]

Keep all.

  • Nga Tsin Wai Road - heavily discussed road due to its significance in the history of Kowloon City.
    The road is mentioned in relation to the history of Nga Tsin Wai Village and and the development of modern Kowloon City in 九龍城 (香港地區史研究之一) by 趙雨樂, 鍾寶賢, ISBN 9789620419707 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
    Its importance as a delivery route during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong and subsequently in the construction of Kai Tak Airport is discussed in 再看啓德: 從日佔時期說起 by 吳邦謀, ISBN 9789881750044
    Its importance as a modern throughfare is discussed in 會說話的地圖 香港篇 ISBN 9789621446602 (incidentally an earlier edition of this book led to a copyright lawsuit between Wikimedians in Hong Kong and the publisher over the use of Commons images without attribution)
    The proliferation of Thai restaurants in recent years along Nga Tsin Wai Road (specifically along this road, not just Kowloon City in general) is discussed in the travel guidebook 魅力情懷潮爆遊Easy GO!香港 by 沙米, 李雪熒 (ISBN 9789881660039) and a few other travel guides.
    建築師地運觀察 by 蔣匡文 (ISBN 9789621443441) discussed both of the last two points (throughfare and Thai cuisine).
These would fit better in Wikivoyage than an encylopedia. Top two reasons are more valid though.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The road must be the subject of the sourced articles not an ancillary bystander to events. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Salle Road - I think in general we should be sceptical about deleting an article which made it to the front page. It's mentioned in a number of books in relation to the abundance of high-end housing and the various schools along the road, e.g. 香港的前後時光 by 張撲 (ISBN 9888200232), and various publications by La Salle College (I'd argue that publications by the schools qualify as "independent" for the notability of the road, because the road was neither built nor named by the school even though it's named after the school.)
Wikipedia usage cannot be used to create notability. The article was in the "did you know" section but that doesn't confer any special rights to existence. The road has to be the subject in the sources not simply that a notable building stands on that road. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lancashire Road - notable as the namesake of a book and a newspaper column by prominent Hong Kong writer 王迪詩. Also site of a fatal car crash in 2012 which led to persistent coverage for a few months about the aftermath. Deryck C. 18:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the namesake, is there anything significant about the road? Also, Notability is not temporary.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: ping.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that namesake column also talks about the road a lot, both in her own writing and in interviews with other journalists e.g. [50]. And I'd say news coverage of a car crash spanning two years confers persistent (i.e. not temporary) notability. And the general application of WP:GNG is that anything that's notable for two or more independent reasons is notable. Deryck C. 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The car crash may be notable but that doesn't automatically make the road notable. The news articles in the google search linked are discussing the accident and people involved. There is no information about the road beyond the meer fact that it exists. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:53, 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) 06:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kemper[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. Furthermore, he fails WP:NHOCKEY as a 9th round draft pick who only played a season in a minor pro league. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing from Highbeam or Google Newspapers, career so undistinguished as to be unnoticeable. This may be one of the most obscure hockey players ever to have someone create a Wikipedia article on his behalf. Ravenswing 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of Western Canadian papers (where he played) shows only trivial mentions as part of routine coverage of the teams. Resolute 16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and [{WP:GNG]].204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:29, 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mateen[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject is known only for his alleged involvement in a scandal, but no other significant coverage of him exists. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A previous relist apparently failed to actually move this to the correct redated list, I assume a script failure. I've manually corrected that by rerelisting and refactoring away the previous half-failed relist attempt. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:20, 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bee (band)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As usual, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up properly, but they're not entitled to keep an unsourced advertisement on Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This album review is the best I could find in terms of coverage, which is to say that there does not appear to be sufficient material from reliable sources for this group to WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk 03:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how they could meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:47, 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. Michig (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albania national football team campaign at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying[edit]

Albania national football team campaign at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think that this topic should be covered in the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I article, no need for separate article. We do not have other articles of this kind, and I do not see why this one would be special. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same author wrote another similar article, Albania national football team campaign at the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification. Should I put that one to discussion too? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been prodded. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as noted above, there are several problems with the page: firstly, there is no consensus that articles covering qualifying comeptitions for individual nations are required. Secondly, there are major issues with WP:NOTSTATS, there is no sourced prose in the article and finally, as a result of the lack of sourced prose, the article is essentially just a fork of the relevant qualifying group article which has all the matches, standings and results in it. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, the title will need to be changed into grammatically correct English..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the problem with the sources, I've used the Soccerway.com, a source which used for almost every football team or football players article on wikipedia, since Transfermarkt.co.uk was called as a non-reliable source. Also I totally agree with ChrisTheDude comment that page should rename/move at least and not to delete completelly. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with the sources is that they are merely routine match reporting. To avoid WP:NOTSTATS issues you need to use much more than this and provide sources that allow the composition of sourced prose beyond simple match reporting. This however would not address the issue that this is simply an unnecessary fork from the European championship qualifying article as there fundamentally was nothing special about Albania's campaign. Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about players of the full squad, which used to called up and played during this campaign. What about individual records showed in infobox?! Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're all stats. Where is the sourced prose showing that this campaign received significant, reliable coverage to meet GNG outside of routine match reporting? Fenix down (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok tell me for which sources you talking about, what kind of them and give me an example. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really not needed. Just stats and results that can be found elsewhere. Kante4 (talk) 19:00, 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) 06:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall (Louisiana)[edit]

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

NN shopping mall. Has been deleted twice.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, one of the prior deletions was G6: Deleted to make way for move -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Notwithstanding the lack of sourcing in the current article, Clearview Mall (aka Clearview Shopping Center) is a reasonably large and significant commercial center for Jefferson Parish (suburban New Orleans). It's mentioned as such in a variety of local-interest books (see the "books" links to the second and third "find sources" strings above), and one can find multiple mentions in local media if one takes the time to scroll through variant Google searches. Having said that, I haven't uncovered more substantial coverage of the sort that would be likely to satisfy most editors that this mall surpasses the GNG threshholds for shopping malls, as they have been applied in other recent AfDs. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My attempts to locate references turned up a wide variety of self-published sources, directories, facebook, our own article, advertisements, foursquare, etc, but (as Arxiloxos says), nothing that meets the WP:GNG requirements to establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom and RoySmith, doesn't meet GNG. United States Man (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in the article are primary and a directory listing. Found nothing in google. Fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Metairie While there do not seem to be enough sources for a standalone article, there does seem to be enough to justify a one-sentence mention in the article on its locality. PWilkinson (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PWilkinson:, add that one sentence now, if it deserves it. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls are not normally notable, and this ne seems to be of purely local interest. Fails significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sells[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP, written and posted by the subject himself, of a person who might pass a notability guideline if substantive coverage were there, but who certainly doesn't get an automatic presumption of notability for anything listed here. (In addition, it bears noting that an anonymous IP recently blanked the entire article — leaving only the photograph and a few empty section headers — while claiming in their edit summary that they were "editing it for compliance". Which is, needless to say, just as problematic as the article itself.) I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up, but as usual he is not entitled to keep a profile on Wikipedia to promote himself if RS coverage isn't there to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why I said that I was willing to withdraw the nomination if the sourcing improved. But we don't keep every article about a writer just because you can point to commercial sites like Amazon or Barnes and Noble as proof that their books exist — we keep articles about writers only if you can point to reliable sources as proof that their writing has garnered coverage. (And by the same token, the mere fact that a person is a professor doesn't automatically get them past PROF in and of itself — you have to be able to cite reliable sources to prove that they've garnered media coverage of some kind for their academic work.) Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, a redirect should automatically be deleted if its target is deleted, and if the deleting editor misses it then it can be immediately speedied as a G8 ("redirect to a deleted page") by anybody who finds it afterward. So it's not necessary to explicitly include the redirect in the target page's AFD nomination, because if the main article gets deleted then the redirect's deletion automatically follows from that. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS h-index of 9 is low for the well cited field of pop-psychology. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary publications, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 16:00, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob H Long[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, single source, and fails WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I found nothing in Google books or Google newspapers.  The reference in the article, [51] was an interesting read regarding the cross-party use of write-in votes, but the topic here is a candidate for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does anyone know if the Russ Diamond mentioned in the linked article is the Russ Diamond we have an article on? The fact that that article said he was "currently" running in a race that happened back in 2010 until I just edited it may reflect a need to better police articles on minor politicians to keep them up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails notability guildeines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; they must win election to pass WP:NPOL, not just run for it. And fairly or not, I tend to suspect conflict of interest editing by the candidate's own campaign staff when a brochure about an unelected candidate shows up as its creator's first-ever contribution to Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but right now he's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 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 per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Institute of Business Productivity[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep 00:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 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. Michig (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Also does not meet any WP:ACADEMIC criterion that I can verify with a reliable source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GNG stipulated clearly that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (I.e not the person personal source), it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. With this[53] In my WP:NPOV, he has not failed WP:GNG. The research work conducted by the subject is most cited accross the globe according to journal Of food science (a reliable source) because of its significance. He has also passed WP:ACADEMICS criteria 1. He has received a Doctorate award,Ph.D which passed him for criteria 2. This [54]and[55] passed him for criteria 3. Lastly to save hour time and the energy to read too many words, this[56]passed him for criteria 8. And we all knows that a researcher don't have to win a Nobel prize before been notable. I suggest that we Keep this article and gives some time for improvement. Thanks (Wikicology (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Criterion 2 at WP:ACADEMIC is "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". Why do you believe that receiving a Ph.D meets this criterion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Yes! Ph.D is a highly prestigeous academic Award/Honor/Degree often “awarded” on the basis of remarkable academic excellence in researches and the significant of the researches to the society or global world. If it is awarded within your country, it is national. If it is awarded outside your country it is international. Sometimes it is awarded as honorary based on the impact of the receiver in his society/country or to the entire world. Aliko Dangote is a receiver of such honorary award based on its impact in Nigeria and to the world. Note also that criteria 2 of WP:ACADEMICS didn't specify the exact classes of the award (I.e maybe a Nobel prize or other specific one). I urge us not to mis-interpret our guilding principle (The criterias and the guidlines). Let's call a Dog a Dog.(Wikicology (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF at this point in his career, with an h-index of only 5. A PhD is not a "a highly prestigious academic award," but the ordinary entry-level qualification to an academic career. The "criteria notes" in WP:PROF explains what the criteria mean. -- 101.117.141.12 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@101.117.141.12: am sorry to say this, if Ph.D is an ordinary entry-level qualification to academic career, what is Bachelor of Science(B.sc)(Wikicology (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
A BSc is an entry-level qualification to a a range of scientific careers below academic level. However, academics (lecturers/professors) at reputable institutions are expected to have (or be close to having) a PhD as a condition for beginning their employment. This does not make them notable (see WP:PROF). -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF and no attempt made to provide independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Having a PhD is not enough for an article otherwise my father's brother's son (brother-in-law I think) would have one.--Launchballer 14:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Am totally lost has to why every wikipedian WP:POV are centered on P.hD. Why not address other areas of the article? Can you shed more light on what you mean by reliable source? Do we have other reliable source topic apart from the one in our guidlines here?(Wikicology (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete In it's current state fails WP:PROF. Need WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 17:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG since there is no sign of him receiving any significant coverage in reliable sources . All the citations on the article are NOT even from very reliable sources. Darreg (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: :@Darreg: here is not a place for nominating an article for speedy delection. Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette. I suggest you read WP:AFDEQ. And don't always based your contribution on existing arguements also read WP:NPOV (Wikicology (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Darreg has made no edits contravening the WP:CIVILITY pillar. Wikicology, you should apologise for suggesting that they have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The comments above seem to say he fails WP:ACADEMIC but nobody explains how. So I'm asking for an explanation. On simple WP:GNG grounds, my google shows about 170 hits for his name, including papers published. I did a little touch up on the article, it looks like it was not written by someone with English as a primary language. There are 9 papers enumerated that this guy has written. Someone please step forward and explain how they are not significant. Unsourced? Sure seems like the google sources are reliable, they seem to show papers he's written. There are 14 sources listed in the article. I could easily add more. So someone knowledgeable in this field, please explain why this is not notable. Trackinfo (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:Prof, its Talk and archives. If you are not familiar with policy and conventions in an area it may be best to postpone editing there until study has brought greater understanding. That way you are less likely to make mistakes. You are clearly an expert in the field of athletics. It might be best to concentrate your talents there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Actually I was requesting you use . . . words. Explain how his 9 documented papers are meaningless. The publications that have published his work are unreliable. How his PHd is just a grade school education in this world . . . that the societies he is part of are insignificant. Point by point, please. Granted its not my field of expertise, I don't deal in the technicalities of WP:PROF so I'm not giving you a reflex "Keep" even though it looks like he qualifies. Instead, I am questioning why all the reflex "Deletes" with no explanation. If he's such a non-notable failure of a medical researcher, who does not deserve an article, then please explain to us, why. Trackinfo (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics have PhDs, and gajillions of perfectly ordinary academics write published papers (which may or may not get cited by anybody). For notability WP:PROF requires more than just being a run-of-the-mill academic (just as WP:ATHLETE specifies that not all sportspeople are notable). There are several categories of "more" in WP:PROF, such as notable awards or significant impact of research (most commonly demonstrated by having an h-index of about 20 or more). WP:PROF spells all this out in detail (and you should read that document before !voting here). The people !voting "delete" are all experienced editors with a long history of applying the policies in WP:PROF. Calling the "delete" !votes "reflex" is unjustified and a breach of WP:CIVIL. -- 101.117.110.81 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At most universities in the US the vast majority of full-time faculty have Ph.D.s, as do many research scientists. There are several million living holders of Ph.D.s just in the US. Even if we limit it to the ones who hold positions as 4-year institutions of higher education, it is way more than we would ever want to have articles on. I could run down lots of articles I have created on people with Ph.D.s that were deleted, a few I think without considering the cultural impact of some of the subjects writing, but it is clear that having a Ph.D. is not enough to make someone notable. Nor is having published a book, even if it is a book with a reputable academic press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article don't have to meet all criteria.Wikicology (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: obviously fails WP:GNG. Please @Wikicology:, get yourself acquainted with Wikipedia's notability guideline, so you won't continue to waste useful efforts. Regards--Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:25, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_29&oldid=1142628694"