Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 June	13 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete, per below, WP:NOR, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility to Respect[edit]

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

The phrase "responsibility to respect" is not even used in the one document cited. A single mention of a responsibility in a government-issued document does not establish notability of that concept, and it doesn't seem like this phrase has been used to discuss the concept elsewhere. At best, it's suitable for merging to a different page, but this doesn't need its own article in any case. CtP (t • c) 23:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albertas Gurskas[edit]

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

Fails GNG horribly. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article was translated from the Lithuanian WP. Though I do not read Lithuanian, the article there seems to have good sources for notability, from what would appear to be a national encyclopedia. There is also a Russian version, poorly sourced, but showing what is probably notability as a designer. It should have been tagged Expand Lithuanian, not listed for deletion DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pure laziness originally from the creator and the nominator. If it "fails GNG horribly" expand and source it. Clearly a notable designer of coins and books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, do you realize you are the creator? Renata (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, otherwise it would look bad me calling the nominator lazy when I didn't add any content or sources initially :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-referenced, with capacity to expand on basis of Lithuanian and Russian wikis. A quick google and google book search reveals that he doesn't fail GNG. --Soman (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of books covering him in a variety of languages Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman and Ritchie. I don't read Russian but if that is any indication this has much potential for expansion by an assiduous editor. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anete Jēkabsone-Žogota[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when I Google news search it seems like there are plenty of Latvian-language articles on her and WNBA players meet WP:NBASKETBALL. She also represented Latvia in the 2008 Olympics.Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NSPORTS as a WNBA player, a member of the national team, an Olympic competitor, a recipient of prestigious awards (FIBA Europe Player of the Year Award, Latvian Sportswoman of the year) and so on. She's way beyond our threshold for basketball players. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, how come that you picked her, of all players? You realize that every member of the 2008 Latvian Olympic squad has an article, and that Jēkabsone-Žogota easily is the most notable one of them all? --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Axolotl. Multiple levels of notability here, both as a WNBA player and an Olympic athlete. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious notability DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Johnson (offensive lineman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Played six seasons in the NFL, and was a Super Bowl champion. An easy WP:NGRIDIRON pass. WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did the nominator read WP:NSPORTS, especially WP:NGRIDIRON? Stats linked in article confirm the subject played 6 seasons in the NFL, passing the notability guideline. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Failure of any WP:BEFORE by nom, obvious notability as six season NFL'er. Nate • (chatter) 02:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Gosling[edit]

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

Fails GNG as the sole ext links are to a fansite and their subject's website Mr. Guye (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to kinks. He was in a notable band, but he himself gets very little press. Bali88 (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has been deemed sufficiently notable to pass our GNG requirements. Carrite is reminded an absence of sources continues to be a valid reason for the deletion of BLPs at AFD, regardless of creation date. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Cebula[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How was this article left unsourced for almost a decade? Good to put it up for AfD so at least it gets some attention; revamped, added references; removed unsourced material, added a category. In the media age, like it or not, TV personalities are notable, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added get her past GNG. Two of the three are small, non-notable blogs that fail WP:USERG, and the third is a primary source video in which she's the interviewer, not the interviewee, in a segment on the program she works for. Thus, at least on the basis of those sources, she fails to be the subject of independent coverage in reliable sources. In reality, TV personalities frequently fall on the wrong side of the distinction between "I've heard of them" fame and properly sourceable notability, because there's quite frequently very little or nothing we can actually write about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sourcing here gets her past WP:GNG, as outlined above. As always, I'm willing to revisit this if good sources about her can be added, but a living person is not entitled to keep an article that's entirely unsourced as this originally was, or one that relies on primary or unreliable blog sourcing as it does now. Delete unless real reliable sources start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight sources; tons more possible; she's a celeb; it's how the world is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first three sources you added still don't count for the reasons I outlined above. Of the five more you've added since: three are just photographs of her, one is a mere directory listing of a couple of television credits, and one is a steak recipe in which she's mentioned a single time as the person who e-mailed the food columnist to ask what she could do with kale. All of them, thus, fail to constitute substantive coverage of her. I'd suggest that you take some time to read WP:RS and learn what constitutes good sourcing, because the fact that you can find eight pages that happen to have her name in them does not mean that you have eight real sources for a Wikipedia article. We're looking for substantive coverage, not cursory text matches. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's agree to disagree. When BC Living magazine names Cebula as one of their 10 most beautiful people of British Columbia -- if that factlet does not float your boat, not sure if anything will.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Factlets", whether of the boat-floating variety or not, don't confer encyclopedic notability, sorry to say. Lots of people have been awarded non-notably local distinctions by non-notable local organizations (e.g. most beautiful person, Top 40 Under 40, Local Luminaries to Watch, etc.) without qualifying for Wikipedia articles on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Would this float your boat?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not a notable publication that passes our reliable sourcing rules, so no. I said in my original comment that I was willing to reconsider this if good sources started showing up — but make no mistake, Rob's sources are the ones that might get me to change my mind, not yours. You really need to learn what constitutes a reliable source and what doesn't, because not all possible sources are equally valid ones. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG she has substantial coverage from multiple independent sources. We have multiple detailed interviews of her. We have repeated and ongoing coverage of her career over the years. I did a search with ProQuest for Canadian periodicals and newspapers, and found well over a hundred hits mentioning her. I simply haven't had time to add every detail available. I have removed the trivial mentions of her, so the better sources aren't lost in the mix. --Rob (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator is reminded that AfD is not the Article Repair Workshop. Old unsourced BLPs were grandfathered when the new policy came about and was not a valid rationale for deletion of this article at the time of the nomination. The article is now sourced up in any event, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Old articles are "grandfathered" as far as {{Prod blp}} goes, which means AFD is the appropriate route. There was no claim of notability that's been generally accepted in the article. Local hosting, or being a national reporter, generally isn't, by itself, enough to keep an article. The only reason the article is being retained, is because it was shown to meet WP:GNG after sources were added. --Rob (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob is correct, old unreferenced BLPs are only "grandfathered" in the sense that they're ineligible for the BLP prod process in particular; they are not "grandfathered" in the sense of having any entitlement to stay around in a permanently unreferenced state, and are still fully eligible for deletion via the AFD process on any of the grounds by which we might consider any other article for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G11'd - that shouldn't be taken to mean a neutral article couldn't be written, but this ain't remotely that. Wily D 10:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Economics (John Komlos)[edit]

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

Unambiguous essay that solely promotes points and opinions in subject rather than giving a WP:NPOV coverage of it. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the neutral point of view is that mainstream textbooks are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkomlos (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's still an opinion, as it's based upon your personal research. It all boils down to notability. You have to show notability for your work based upon independent and reliable sources. WP:PRIMARY sources are never usable to show notability. Bluntly put, the subject of the article isn't what is being discussed here. What's being discussed is whether or not your book passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, this is merely a repetition of the books content rather than an article about the book. Also the work seems to fail WP:BOOK.TheLongTone (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguously promotional --this is undoubtedly also a copyvio, but I haven't had a chance to look for it. If the book is notable, it would have to be rewritten from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already Dead Tapes[edit]

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

A non notable recording company, little to no media coverage. Staglit (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Bali88 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Altho as a former Kalamzooian, I wish them the best of luck, they simply have not had enough publicized luck to vet anything resembling notability. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaSins[edit]

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

It is cruft to list every video and tally. Also note the use of unreliable blog sources. wirenote (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in its current form, does seem like pure fancruft. I also agree that the current sources are unacceptable for various reasons. I did find this, but it doesn't establish notability. However, I'll wait to see if better sources are presented. CtP (t • c) 22:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article has rather poor writing and a dire lack of sources, I would consider it's incomming links establishing notability for it. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a very notable channel on YouTube, but I would say that it definitely needs more sources. I would also say that the section dealing with the sin videos and their corresponding totals should be kept in a section that you expand, rather than just laying flat on the page. -- Kaitlyn - 6:22, 16 June 2014

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 08:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community Service The Movie[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NFILM. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full disclosure, I just blocked the original editor as a promotional username. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this movie is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I remember coming across this on Kickstarter last year and doing a little bit of research on it in the hopes of finding coverage to make an article because well, quite frankly I love being able to make articles for indie films. I wasn't able to find any reviews in reliable sources and I couldn't really find anything to actually back up the claimed awards that wasn't a primary source for the director/crew. Not even the official websites for the various festivals had the film or the director on the awards lists, at least for the ones that had them listed. I did look to see if I could find anything now, and the only thing I can actually find are news stories about alleged extortion attempts- not exactly what I think that this director wants associated with his films. Unfortunately that's really the only stuff I was able to find and not something I'd really use to keep the article with, even if we could keep it on that source alone. (Which thankfully, we can't.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per sources found per SCHMIDT. It'll likely need to be watched to ensure it doesn't go promotional again, but the news coverage about the controversy paired with the review is just enough in my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep per Film Threat review, and others less RS.[1][2] showing a genre cult interest. Sorry Tokyogirl79, but I think we sometimes use different search buttons. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm less convinced it's a search button and more convinced that you have magical powers over the Internet. XD Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I looked and couldn't find anything but the sources Schmidt found get it over the line, I think. Editor has now been formally warned about his use of magical powers. Ha ha. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as below also as hoax, made-up and just plain patent nonsense. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their Four's Adventures[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased film. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the same film:

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a page to the list, as it's the same film, same page, but with more information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll be bluntly honest: this film will almost certainly never be made. It's ultimately something someone came up with one day on DeviantArt. It could probably be speedied as a blatant hoax, since it's highly, highly unlikely that Dreamworks and Disney would come together on a film, let alone let someone else make a fan film about it- especially given Disney's overly protective stance on their works. (How It Should Have Ended wasn't even able to use lyrics from Frozen in a parody video, so yeah...) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 08:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norway–Western Sahara relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All this is on this "relationship" is position of Norway to WS conflict, which is covered in Political status of Western Sahara (and can be also covered in Foreign relations of Norway). There is no relationship of two States, no diplom. relations, no trade, no visits by leaders, no migration, no embassies etc. Jan CZ (talk) 20:51, 12 June 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 June 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also seems like a WP:fork. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then Redirect to Foreign relations of Norway to avoid creation of a content fork. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real relationship, as nom says adequately covered in other articles. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no relationship between states.--Staberinde (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chabad Houses in Israel[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is nothing more than a list of Israeli towns with Chabad houses. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a directory, plain and simple. Very few Chabad houses are individually notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Bali88 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced list of red-linked non-notable buildings fails notability and WP:NOTDIR— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philg88 (talk • contribs) [3]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator because of WP:NOTADVERTISING; WP:NOTREPOSITORY; WP:NOTWEBHOST; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Chabad house article contains a link to a Worldwide directory of Chabad Houses which now appears at the top of external links. Gregkaye (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gini Cruz Santos[edit]

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

Claim to notability is her association w/ Pixar. People can't inherit notability from their employers. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree earlier article was unsourced, but revamped version has multiple independent references indicating a top talent (2 award nominations), easily meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was nominated for notable awards, and has been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. By the way, long direct quotations from sources like these are regarded by some as a form of copyright violation and by others (like me) as extremely cumbersome and distracting. If they went away, my hands would clap. Carrite (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the long quotes within the references are only there to help Wikipedians decide on whether to delete or spare the article, since it makes it easy to check sources, and my general policy is to trim them substantially if the article is kept; you're right about copyvio rules; got into a discussion about this years back.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compound Gastrectomy Bowel Resection[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

This article did have copyvio problems, so I deleted most of the text, but the reasons provided here are reasons to change the content of an article(reasons which no longer apply since most the content is gone anyways), not reasons to delete it.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unverified. I could not find a single reference to this procedure at Google Scholar, and the only things found at Google are this article and mirrors. The two references currently in the article are about gastrectomy and bowel resection, separately; nothing about the compound procedure appears in either of them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter Horizons Academy[edit]

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

Advertisement. Advertising is something WP:ISNOT for. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a K–12 school. High schools are presumed notable per editor consensus. If promotion is an issue, the article can be reduced to a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not particularly promotional, beyond normal editing. Does need a check for copyvio, but if found, can be stubbified to the first sentence and the infobox. Even if not all HS were considered notable, this one is rather distinctivve, and would be. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires clean-up. But notable. Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High schools of verified existence are presumed notable through long running consensus at AfD. If this is promotional, depromotionalize those aspects through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7 - only substantial author requests deletion kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kalimahana Miller[edit]

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

It's a genealogical article. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a good call and have been contemplating merge with delete for the article, so I have requested G7 speedy deletion as the author of the only substantial content. Any admin seeing this should feel free to speedy.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. It sucks having an article deleted, and I appreciate your approach to this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charly Maíz[edit]

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

Non-notable individual whose scope as a PR manager evidently extends to using WP for self-promotion... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only superficially survives A7 (assertions of notability). Number of Twitter followers, WP:PUFFERY, poor sources. Ultimately just fails WP:NPEOPLE. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Rhododendrites put it better than I could have. CtP (t • c) 22:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been trying to give new articles a bit of time to grow before I bring them to AfD. I don't think there's any chance that reliable sources will be found for this person. I tried to tone down the promotional content in this article, but I see that some of it has already returned. I believe this article is being used solely for promotion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article seems to be entirely publicist or self written.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only talent seems to be spamming. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Y. Hayden[edit]

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

Article de-PRODded by a University of Rochester IP with reason "I propose that this article remain on Wikipedia, as the the implications of Hayden's research for societal problems are profound". PROD reason was "Up-and-coming researcher. However, awards are minor and grants are what is to be expected of a young faculty. Web of Science lists 30 publications that have been cited 743 times (h-index=18) in this high-citation density field. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Article creation premature." Reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been watching this page since its creation with some concern. I agree with the nominator about WP:TOOSOON. On first reading, the page does appear to meet GNG because of the numerous awards described, and the publications in high-quality scientific journals. However, I looked at the subject's website (from the external links section of the page), and he is an Assistant Professor at his university. Per WP:ACADEMIC, this places him below the notability threshold for academics, absent other demonstrations of notability. (I'll point out that the consensus at WP:ACADEMIC sets the threshold for notability here higher than it is set for living persons in various other areas of accomplishment. In part, this is because of the temptation to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO.) As for the awards, I've looked at them one-by-one, and they are all awards that are given to early-career scientists, the kinds of awards that are intended to help a young investigator get a career started. The publications are impressive, but typical of an early-career, tenure-track faculty member. If I were in the business of divining the future, I would predict that this subject is very likely to satisfy Wikipedia notability in the future. As the IP de-PRODder said, there are important implications, but we cannot get around WP:CRYSTAL until those implications are realized. For the present, it is premature to have a biographical page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS h-index of 18 in a highly cited field is a little too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. On a promising career track but WP:TOOSOON to have demonstrated adequate impact in what is a high-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyzox[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable product. It may exist according to the only source I could find here. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it may exist, it clearly isn't notable.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably could be speedied as A7 for not asserting notability, but it without a doubt fails GNG, etc. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources (or any sources really) found to establish notability. If earlier versions of the article are to be believed, the product/company has been around a while moving among a few countries. No real coverage of it though or even much evidence to determine if it ever went on sale. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability failure. No sources found - a notable product from a Hong Kong company would normally have a Chinese name and by association an article in Chinese Wikipedia. I see evidence of neither. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Page[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Article is entirely self-promotional and does not convey notability for this website. The ghits I've found are trivial; I'm not seeing the kind of widespread coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. PaintedCarpet (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding independent coverage for this site; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Gongshow talk 04:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant RS coverage to meet GNG. Only found brief mentions, as part of a stock one-sentence bio of Geoff Collinson here, as part of a business biography database here, and in a two-sentence description here. That last article explains that it was renamed RivusTV, which may be slightly more notable, but there is no article on it here. Even if there were, merging would be wrong, because the article on The Music Page cites no sources. NOTE: The Music Page was located at themusicpage.com, which may be useful in attempts to find reliable sources about it. Agyle (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a10, copy of Islam in India. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrition in animals[edit]

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

Unambiguous essay. Deceptive title:article is really about Islam in India. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a copy-and-paste of Islam in India under a misleading title. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akisha Albert[edit]

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

Disputed proposal from another editor. Difficult to find sources for this subject, though a lot of people made forums about her. Other editor's concern was: Doubtfully notable. The article has no reliable source. (Also, it was created by an editor with a history of making false claims, and the content is unverifiable.) Mr. Guye (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the editor who put a PROD on the article. At that time, its only reference was Facebook. Since then, the Facebook reference has been removed, and two references to forums have been added. Apart from the fact that they are not reliable sources, neither of them has any substantial information about her. They both consist almost entirely of photographs that people have uploaded to the forum. There are a few brief comments such as "She's beautiful" and "Great choice". There is nothing even remotely suggesting notability by Wikipedia standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Issues with notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We've had several minor beauty queens appearing here recently, and precedent is well-established: not notable just for being an entrant to a contest. RomanSpa (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Roberson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is poorly referenced and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E T Davies[edit]

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

No sources to indicate notability Miszatomic (Talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I have just done some improvement on this article. It still needs more work. Though there are no explicit sources, the Chuch in Wales Congress Handbook 1953 is clearly impliedly one. Editing 18 volumes of a minor journal (probably over 18 years) is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found one RS with some quick web searching and added it to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this qualifies for notability under either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC as it now stands. One source, albeit reliable, and reasonably independent does not do it. But this seems like a proper case for WP:IAR. The single source does provide adequate evidence that he meets the "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" requirement if we found a second reliable source. I do not have access to either the DNB or the back issues of The Times could someone check those? I found a biographical note, entitled "The Author" in Davies's Religion and society in the nineteenth century (1981) and have added it to the article, it is not that independent, but it is a second source. Unfortunately the access I have to it is only through snippet view in Google Books. --Bejnar (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Kite[edit]

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

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail GNG and PRODUCT. Sources fail RS and a Google failed to yield the kind of in depth coverage required to ring the notability bell. Article had been tagged for CSD per G-11 but while I see no notability here, it doesn't look like it is a naked advertisement of the sort we speedy delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NWEB. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As User:Rhododendrites stated, it fails WP:NWEB 92.28.195.73 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. It exists, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Ziegler[edit]

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

Redirect to Dance Moms, the majority of the infomation on here was acquired from IMDb, she borderline fails WP:GNG as she doesn't have any significant coverage on her. There are 3 references that are from primary sources and only 1 article that is real significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When I first saw this, I was sure it would be a delete, but it turns out there are sources that discuss the subject in some depth, for example [4] [5] [6]. There are also quite a few minor sources. This would seem to meet WP:BASIC.- Mr X 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl I'll add the sources to her page, thanks X :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 then redirect to Scrum (software development)#Scrum Master. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scrum Master[edit]

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

Seemed CSD-able but unclear which it would fall under. Unclear why it merits a stand-alone article beyond those that already exist like the several articles we already have related to Scrum, Fiedler contingency model. Also problematic unencyclopedic tone with several WP:NOT issues (i.e. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or manual) and seems vaguely promotional. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly, it is absolutely unclear what the article is about, at one point I thought it was about Rugby, then leadership, and now have no idea. Secondly, two of the references are the same. I will fix this issue, but it does then leave the article still being almost unintelligible, and only having two references.

Edit Having read the section on "Agile" in the article, this section does not seem to fit in with the rest of the article, at least, as far as I can understand the article.

Edited: m8e39 14:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m8e39 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm a Certified Scrum Master. I don't recognise a word of this and trying to read it makes my eyes hurt. Burn it, start again. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Scrum (software development)#Scrum Master. As written, the article is poorly sourced and lacks context and cohesion. Also, there is already a Fiedler contingency model article, which has its own problems.- Mr X 14:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - I see a couple of places where this might redirect to. Scrum in Marketing Department and Scrum (software development) are proposed to be merged with each other. Until that happens...eenie meanie miney moe it I guess. The article is a hot mess. I have no idea what's going on. Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrum in Marketing Department Andy Dingley (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Seems there's a rash of these things lately. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Any useful material should be merged into Scrum (software development). Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Then Redirect to Scrum (software development)#Scrum Master. Incoherent and unstructured as well as in contravention of what Wikipedia is not Looks like thinly veiled promotion for the main reference supplied, which is a career development website and certainly not reliable.
Delete per nom and as minimally intelligible conslutant[sic]-speak. --Finngall ^talk 22:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone wants some of the content restored for the purposes of merging, contact me or any other admin. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 15:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian police officers suicide[edit]

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

Some police officers kill themselves, just like some other people kill themselves. But stringing a few case histories together just because they're Indian police officers isn't at all encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At the moment, the subject of the article relies on a single newspaper article. If someone can dig up a few other sources, I'm willing to change my !vote to keep.- Mr X 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As MrX says, the entire topic is based on a single newspaper article. At the moment it does not scream notability but I'm open to persuasion. I have notified the creator of the article so hopefully they will comment on any plans to improve it. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry to sound harsh but we don't need articles on every single police officer death!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Suicide in India. I did some looking -- to the extent I can in English -- and did find a couple academic papers that touch on it, but they aren't substantial. If someone wants to take a look through the references they cite, they're here and here (both PDFs). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the references Rhododendrites. I'm not sure that "merge" would be better than "keep" – the Suicide in India article has a "Dynamics" section where two of the three sub-topics (Domestic violence and suicide, Suicide motivated by Politics and Farmer's Suicide) have links out to {{main}} articles, suggesting that if we can establish notability this one should be a standalone article. On a more general note, if it is kept than there should be a move to Police suicides in India or similar given the grammar/clunkiness problem with the current title. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Thus topic by itself is more of a research topic than an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote this article as to know information about Indian police officers suicide. Definitely article is an encyclopedia. Police is in India facing huge pressures e.g. political, system, public, family etc to deliver their duties. In this situation if they are not able to handle situations/ balance, trend says reason of their suicide and numbers are high.GKCH (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you think that this is important, but what we need for Wikipedia purposes is more references that back up your assertion that this is a notable topic. If you can find sources that show the trend you have identified, then the article has a much better chance of surviving this AfD. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is not a notable topic.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Suicide in India, which is not so lengthy that it couldn't accomodate additional material. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Durrant[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Rui Gabriel Correia prodded it but failed to notify Piotrus, the creator, and he had it restored. I tried to BLP PROD it, at which point Rui Gabriel Correia left a note on my talk page saying "Technicallly, the page could be deleted already as I proposed deletion earlier this month and it was left uncontested for longer than 7 days. Then the banner was taken down. Does that mean the new nomination must stay in place for 7 days again?" and I left a note on Ronhjones' talk page; upon submitting, I found that Piotrus had left him a note and he had restored it. Laun chba ller 12:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I had no intention on violating any requirement or not observing it by failing to notify the creator. It was a lapse and I have apologised to the creator for it. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All's good, thanks for explaining. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of available sources suggests that he is not notability. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACADEMICS.- Mr X 13:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Countless academics review articles for publications and serve on professional bodies; it is par for the course. Edit history reveals almost non-existing interest in subject. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GS h-index of 20 in the field of audiology (there seems to be more than one "J D Durrant") passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm curious about how you arrived at that h-index number. Also, his last name is Durrant, not Durant (I assume that was a typo).- Mr X 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a typo. There is material about citation counting at h-index and WP:Prof. I do the counting on my fingers. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete due to apparent failure to meet WP:PROFESSOR/WP:ACADEMIC, in addition to lack of sources which might enable meeting WP:GNG. This is despite my very great concern at the incoherent and irrelevant arguments advanced by some of the other people !voting delete - which I would like to be noted by the closing admin. Only arguments based on policy and guidelines should be taken into account when closing an AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I am sure that there are millions of professors who are not notable enough, including this one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive at the figure of millions? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Can be confirmed from yellowpages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain as the creator, but I'll ping User:Randykitty - a penny for your thoughts? Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How WP:GNG doesn't fail? This article should be deleted $AHLM13$ talk 11:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He has a weak claim of notability under WP:PROFESSOR; his articles received a moderate number of citations (two got over 100) and he seems to have been a bit of an authority on vestibular dysfunction. But he never rose above the titles of "professor" and vice-chair of a department, and now (according to his faculty page at Pitt) he is emeritus. All in all I think he fails WP:PROF and is a run-of-the-mill academic. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the page is not eligible for BLP prod since it contains a link to his faculty page at Pitt. It isn't cited as a reference but I believe it still counts. "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoonmarmalade[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable cell phone novel. Two "sources" have been added since - one to say it's had 11,500 views and one to say it's won the 'Editor's Choice Award' (not exactly prestigious). I couldn't find any real independent coverage of this novel. Moswento ^talky 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG notability with no reliable sources found. Article is also a thinly veiled promotion for the Textnovel website/blog and is full of disallowed external links. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently no reliable sources exist with which to establish notability. Fails WP:NBOOK.- Mr X 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Otis[edit]

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

Insufficient indications of notability. The given citations indicate that Otis has received credits in some photo shoots, and has received mention in passing for winning the inaugural P&G Beauty Awards for "Makeup artist of the year". As this is a new award ceremony, and Otis received only a "yep, she won that" mention in the coverage, it doesn't really seem like the required significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the inclusion of further references which prove Otis's Notability and provide further information on her achivements and career. EditorialExpert (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)EditorialExpertEditorialExpert (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional unless wording is improved and some content is removed, eg. name of her agent. Deb (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Deb:, if you believe the article can be improved to the point of retention, then you should improve it rather than !voting delete. I don't believe it can be, based on the paucity of sources, but that is one man's opinion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't either. Deb (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

'keep' note article from FASHION magazine 'National treasures: Over the past 35 years, these Canadian innovators have been making their beauty mark at home and abroad' and 'Sneak Peak at Joe Fresh makeup collection' which sites Otis as Beauty Director at Joe Fresh. EditorialExpert (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Editorial ExpertEditorialExpert (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Fashion article in question (here includes Otis in their list of "national treasures" but says nothing else about her. The "Sneak Peak" article (also at Fashion magazine, here) does, indeed, name Otis as Beauty Director at Joe Fresh, and says nothing else about her. We're looking for significant coverage here (i.e. an entire article written about this person), not just brief mentions in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for several reasons. In fact I initially speedily deleted the article, but then I decided that since this AfD has been started, we may as well allow it to be discussed. The article is promotional, it fails to demonstrate notability (despite an attempt to saturate it with numerous unsuitable references: see WP:BOMBARD). It is also sufficiently similar to the article deleted at Articles for deletion/Simone Otis that it could be considered to qualify for speedy deletion as a repost. (Note: This is one of a group of articles created and re-created by single purpose accounts, all of whose editing has been promotion for one "management company" and its clients.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a recreation, but even if not it clearly doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12). MER-C 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandu hidayat[edit]

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

Possible autobiography Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- was copied from http://kamarkedap.blogspot.com.au/2012_12_01_archive.html . MER-C 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military ranks of Estonia. In the future, uncontroversial redirects can be boldly implemented by following the instructions at WP:REDIRECT. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Air Force ranks[edit]

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

Can you please redirect to Military ranks of Estonia Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Of course. Adds nothing to the Military ranks of Estonia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't seem the slightest bit controversial. Could easily be redirected without debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military ranks of Estonia per above.--Staberinde (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Armed Forces uniforms[edit]

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

Do we really need this article? a search for RAF uniform will find the relevant page without the need for this article. This article is an orphan, so nothing links here anyway Gbawden (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Why not change the page into a disambig? While it is not itself an encyclopedic entry, the pages it links to do have relevence, and anyone searching for "British Armed Forces uniforms" would benefit from a disambig page of this nature, linking to the articles they may be after. (I would also like to point out that people do not only search for RAF uniforms, and there are more military sections under the Mod than the RAF, therefore, the fact that "a search for RAF uniform will find the relevant page..." is not a reason for deletion) m8e39 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the nominator's reference to the RAF is what is generally known in the trade as "an example"! It could equally apply to people searching for the uniforms of the other three services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would imagine that anyone searching on this topic would use the key words "RAF uniform" or "Royal Navy uniform" etc. rather than "British armed forces uniform" so the page is arguably redundant. m8e39 please note that it is not considered good practice to move an article, as you have done to British Armed Forces uniforms (disambiguation), in the course of an AfD discussion. Please see this guideline for more details. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Philg88 I accept that it is arguably redundant, but I think that there would be a percentage of the world who, when looking for British military uniforms, would not necessairaly know that the services have different uniforms from one another, and would search for this article. I'm not arguing to keep the article on the grounds that there are more than the RAF in Britain, I'm arguing to keep it on the grounds that people may genuinely search for this topic to find the pages it links to.
- I cannot, however, give any example of a country where all Armed forces have the same uniform. m8e39 14:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Canada. See Uniforms of the Canadian Forces Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mainly because I'm not seeing a deletion rationale. Deletion isn't about whether we "need it" or whether it's "useful." Maybe I'm overlooking something, but what specifically is the reason? From my point of view, what makes the most sense is to just turn it into the disambiguation page that it is (sans gallery). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness is a valid criterion for disambiguation pages. It's also easy to imagine a non-native English speaker being unaware that the British Navy is the Royal Navy on this Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is essentially a dab-page. It should certainly not be expanded and may need a tag to discourage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Happy Together (film)[edit]

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

Relies on IMDb as its sole source. IMDb is generally not considered reliable. LukeSurl^{t c} 07:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find reliable sources about this film. Moswento ^talky 13:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Changing vote in light of sources found by Arxiloxos. Moswento ^talky 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was nominated for the Metro Manila Film Festival Award for Best Picture. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination is not among the criteria for notability set in WP:NF. 舎利弗 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep - I suspect this may be a language barrier issue. There should be something reliable out there for such a nomination, even if it itself doesn't confer notability. After all, the only reason some awards do are because sources can be assumed. Best I could find in English was a couple bloggy-type reviews and verification of its existence. Hopefully someone better (i.e. familiar at all) with Tagalog will be able to find sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (Update: Given the sources linked by Arxiloxos below, I've changed my !vote from weak delete to weak keep. Seems sufficient to pass NFILM.) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name:(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)

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

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

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

Comment. HighBeam yields coverage from the Manila Bulletin: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. None of these are particularly deep coverage, but the last one does confirm the IMDb awards page statement that Eric Quizon won the Golden Screen Award for Best Actor for this picture. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. Article and project will benefit by it remaining and being improved through regular editing. In this instance, deletion does not serve to improve Wikipedia. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NF: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Have you found sources that the rest of us haven't? I understand the usefulness argument, but given the number of subjects that exist in the world, not having standards would mean Wikipedia would just turn into the web and cease to be an encyclopedia. Therefore the subjective assessment that it is WP:USEFUL isn't typically factored into deletion debates. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming a "subjective" WP:USEFUL is no more helpful than claiming a "subjective" WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. Simply put, as multiple independent reliable sources have been brought forward speaking about the film and the many notables involved, WP:NF is met. Per WP:WIP, we do not require immediate perfection if notability is shown. Thanks for trying to read my mind. We do not expect world-wide coverage. Notable to the Philippines or in Tagalog is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. . 06:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Arxiloxos's links blended in with all of the find sources links. Didn't see them. It's still not a home run for WP:NF by any means, but I agree it's passable. I'll change my !vote accordingly and take back my lecture about WP:USEFUL. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Manila Bulletin is a major national newspaper; the first article cited is mainly a plot synopsis, but the entire article is about So Happy Together. The newspaper meets the requirements for WP:RS, so the article as it stands is well sourced (the same Bulletin articles could serve as cites in the 'Plot' section.) - Neonorange (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article and its sourcing have been much improved since the nomination, I am happy for this to be considered withdrawn. --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praq Rado[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 07:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No claim to notability. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article is an A7 candidate feel free to add a tag to the page.--Laun chba ller 07:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clementi, Singapore#Education. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clementi Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles of such schools, absent substantial non-routine non-local coverage that is not present here. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom then Redirect to Clementi, Singapore#Education. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. We generally do not delete articles about such respectable schools. Andrew (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contra, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Just asserting that "we generally do" something that we do not generally do does not establish notability. Please note as well the comments by others at this and other ongoing school AfDs. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the topic has no inherent notability, therefore that is a weak argument for keeping. If it was inherently notable everyone would be voting keep. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per long-standing precedent and consensus, primary schools must be exceptionally notable to have a standalone article. So yes, in fact we do generally delete articles about such schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, - Non notable primarys generally get redirected as opposed to Deleted. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no inherent notability of primary schools, this one does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clementi, Singapore#Education per Philg88. Yes, primary schools are normally not notable, and they can be deleted, but since there's a logical target, a redirect is a better option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clementi, Singapore#Education per long-standing consensus as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LifebankUSA[edit]

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

Not notable company. Most of the references don't talk about the company / business or mention it only in passing. Most of the medical references appear not to pass WP:MEDRS. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your friends. Fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Rush[edit]

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

No claim of notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was created by a person with a user name of JustJamesRush. A web search leads to no reliable sources giving significant coverage. SchreiberBike talk 06:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator claims not to be James Rush on their talk page, but "a friend". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. IMdb is not reliable or a marker for notability. Observer article is just a mention based on him tweeting that he finished a tv series quickly and doesn't relate to his notability as a film critic. Cowlibob (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument Against What Is Claimed

Firstly the IndieWire page / source confirms that James Rush is infact a film critic and IndieWire is a notable and reliable source which invites critics on an individual bases into its network. Secondly James Rush is just as notiable as another critic on Wikipedia Jason Gorber at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Gorber, his sources are also just as questionable. Additionally the Observer article confirms that he is in fact the editor-in-chief of Tastic Film Magazine. Finally if you search "james rush tastic film" on Google you can find this site (http://american-interior.com/film/) an official film site for a film called 'American Interior' quoting him as a film critic. The IMDB page is only listed as a source to confirm that he is infact born in 1996 and that he has previously directed and written a film. If you would like to read one of James Rush's film reviews from the 2013 Cannes Film Festival simply go to the link in the brackets (http://www.tasticfilm.com/festivals/cannes-review-all-is-lost/3000).

Added Source I have added a source, a list of film critics accredited as press for the 2014 Cannes Film Festival at this link (http://www.cannesinteractive.com/files/Liste.Medias.pdf?id=56390503&id2=13D920CC232&id3=124) You can find James Rush on page 192 of the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.124.38 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that the fact that he is featured in an Observer is the exact reason why he is notable.

There is no debate about whether he is a film critic or has been recognized as such by someone, the question is whether he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The existing sources do not demonstrate that. Regarding the other critic you mention. That critic does appear to be more notable and regardless, other stuff exists does not change the standard of notability. SchreiberBike talk 20:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well SchreiberBike could I just ask in which way he is "more notable". As if you mean more search results in google belong to him, then think for a minute which name is more unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.124.38 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, please sign your contributions and log in if possible so everyone knows who said what. Sinebot won't auto sign for you every time. What was the vetting process for Indiewire? I look at their directory and it contains critics who have written for reputable organisations such as LA Times but it also contains people who only host on their own website. We're discussing this article not others if you think that article has issues fix it or report it. The Observer article discusses him as a random person who binge watched a tv show, it would be different if they hosted a film review written by him. IMDb is not a reliable source. Being mentioned on the "American Interior" site does not confer notability. Going to Cannes or any film festival does not confer notability as any freelancer can do so. Cowlibob (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am having trouble logging in. Secondly If you look it shows that James Rush was accredited as press at the Cannes Film Festival for the media outlet 'Tasticfilm.com' along with Peter Turner - So he is not a freelancer - if he was it actually states which members of press are freelancers or the media outlets that they are representing. Additionally, the Cannes Film Festival is the hardest in the world to get accredited for proving that any official member of press there is a high-level critic with a big audience. Finally, the vetting process for IndieWire is that you have to be a recognizable voice for critics, there as you can't apply, they just search out critics to send them an invitation to their network. I would also like to add that the list of websites run by critics, reporters and journalists that are hosting on their own website include The Verge and ScottFeinburg.com - most sites in the last five years started out as being a blog or run by someone, which James Rush did he founded Tastic Film Magazine whcih now has 13 reporters which you can find a list of at http://www.tasticfilm.com/contact-us. If you woudl like to see one of James' reviews which is on another site seprate form his own he has written for The Fan Carpet in the past you can see his review on there at http://www.thefancarpet.com/reviews/rapturepalooza/. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be addressed is how the subject is notable as described at Wikipedia:Notability (people) which is summarized by "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." SchreiberBike talk 21:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that the sources here already confirm that he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and I think that the sources will grow more over time. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, we can't base notability on speculation about the future. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said he is notable now based on those sources listed, i simply said that he will only become more notable over time. Also while Tastic FIlm Magazine is significant and has an audience in the hundreds of thousands and a following of 14.5 thousand on twitter including being followed by the hollywood reporter and deadline hollywood but it has no sources while James Rush individually has received more coverage from other publications. 151.228.124.38 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very bad practice to delete other people's contributions as you did with this edit. Do not do so again. [14] Cowlibob (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable critic. A single story in the Observer is not sufficient to establish notability. The magazine is not notable. -- GreenC 02:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Lyra[edit]

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

Unambiguous promotion. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI would not call this unambiguous advertising by any means, but she does appear to fail WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, does fail WP:GNG but I believe it is some attempt at promoting the subject. However, I'm not convinced that the sources contributors have put in entirely support the content in the article. (perhaps even wp:blpprod?)

m8e39 13:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Theredproject (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. If there are sources, they may be in Greek language media, or other non-English media, hard to spot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MathPlay[edit]

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

Article is a promotional piece Jayakumar RG (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sciyard Calculator[edit]

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

Article is a promotional piece Jayakumar RG (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G11 and I have nominated it as such. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided seem to provide proof of notability. RomanSpa's comments, while appreciated, are not convincing. Nothing in WP:BKCRIT says that we can assess the quality of a book review. The reviews put forth are more than just plot summaries. It is inconsequential that you judge the reviews to be unsophisticated or written by a "young reviewer". ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 15:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paws and whiskers[edit]

Paws and whiskers (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)
Note that article name has been moved to Paws and Whiskers

Declined PROD: article about a children's book without any third-party refs to establish WP:NBOOKS. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist although not in article: the Guardian, the Times.TheLongTone (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a very recent book (release date: 13 Feb 2014), and although it received several brief reviews upon publication (as do all Doubleday Children's books), it received no particular attention, no real critical commentary, and fails WP:BKCRIT. It is an anthology which includes works by notable authors, but notability is not inherited. It has won no awards, appeared on no best-seller lists, and makes no claim to notability. The article's author is, almost but not quite, a single-topic editor. No conflict of interest was disclosed. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are now (20 June) more citation to reliable sources in the article, but still not the critical commentary envisioned by WP:BKCRIT. --Bejnar (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional. It's not enough that there are sources that prove that the book exists; they must also prove its notability. This is just a random anthology. RomanSpa (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article is fixable. Improvements have been made and notability has been shown. The article title Paws and whiskers is incorrect, so I'll go ahead and move it to Paws and Whiskers, so we can rescue it from being an orphan. (P.S. Don't forget to search for the pre-publication name of this book also: Battersea Cats and Dogs Anthology.)
Cheers. —Telpardec TALK 04:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Move completed. Added note at top. —Telpardec 04:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm afraid not. You have misunderstood our criteria for book notability. It is not enough to show, as your amendments do, that the book exists and is being sold. For a book to be notable, it is not enough to find references to the book itself: these references must also "contain sufficient critical commentary" to go beyond a simple summary of plot or contents. Nor does it matter that the editor and many of the contributors are themselves notable: many notable people have written non-notable books. Nor does the fact that the book is raising money for charity provide notability: though worthy, this is at most cause for a sentence in our article about that charity. Generosity of spirit, though laudable, is (thank goodness) sufficiently common that not every such act requires its own Wikipedia page.

To go through our criteria for book notability one by one: (1) Book fails, as there is no critical commentary; (2) Book fails, as it has not won a major literary award; (3) Book fails, as it has not made a significant contribution to another major cultural event; (4) Book fails, as it is not regularly used for instruction in schools; (5) Book fails, as the editor is not so historically significant that any of her works are automatically notable.

I'm sorry, but any way you look at it, this book is essentially an ephemeral item. It will not be discussed a month from now, and will be forgotten within a year. It might merit a brief mention in the Battersea Dogs' Home article, but as a literary work this book is entirely of no note. RomanSpa (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, new sources: BBC and Bookwitch at Wordpress. Now, let's go through WP:BKCRIT one more time. #1, it passes, because of the excellent sourcing in The Guardian and The Times, and the BBC. Therefore, #2, #3, #4 and #5 are redundant, because Notability:Books' criteria list is a list of criteria for INCLUSION, not deletion- "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria": Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you have misunderstood our criteria: we need the references to "contain sufficient critical commentary". I agree that the references certainly prove that the book exists, but we need more than just a summary of the stories included: we need more than the uncritical admiration of the young reviewer writing "I love cats. Cats are cool.". Just because someone likes something does not make it notable. RomanSpa (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If someone wants to merge the content, feel free to request temporary undeletion for that purpose. ‑Scottywong | express _ 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of DeVry University locations[edit]

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

Here comes, as a first contribution out of nowhere, a complete directory of DeVry locations--information which with one click is available from the company website. Or, delete as redundant. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:LINKFARM in disguise as a seemingly innocent directory whose 'cites' just link to each location. Not needed. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Another option could be to very selectively merge some of the content to DeVry Education Group. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Northamerica1000, I was thinking the same thing, but I found some of that content in that (or the other main article) already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DeVry Education Group. This material is appropriate in that context, not as a freestanding list, which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The main piece is not so long as to make merger impracticable. Carrite (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inu-Yupiaq[edit]

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

Though the article is a bit unclear, this is a student dance group at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. (As far as I can tell, this is not an established dance style. The word is a portmanteau of Iñupiaq and Yupik, two major Alaska Native groups that each have their own dance styles.) I can't find any significant coverage of the student group. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article is not just about the student group, and while it clearly needs help and work, it also clearly passes the WP:GNG for a Native American cultural concept. Alaskanative.net states that "Song duels" were a traditional part of the cultures of the Inupiaq and the St. Lawrence Island Yupik People (see here and just because the cultural preservation activity appears to be promoted at a University does not mean it is to be rejected. I also found this book, which indicates that indigenous song and dance is part of the Inupiaq culture. (see p. 127) Montanabw ^(talk) 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the above google link gave over 3000 hits, notably these: news coverage, About page, explains they do "Eskimo motion dancing", this page shows the student group, UAF search shows it exists, and so on. Hope this helps. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Song duels" (probably referring to Inuit throat singing) are something completely different from this dance group. Note: the content on "song duels" now in the article was added by Montanabw. This is a specialized skill/tradition and there is nothing to indicate that any of the members of Inu-Yupiaq have ever participated in song duels/throat singing. This is a fusion group that combines a variety of notable dance forms from various Alaska Native groups (on which we should but apparently do not yet have articles). We should have Inupiaq dance, Yupik dance, etc. (perhaps even Alaska Native dance if a reasonable summary of the various groups' traditions can be constructed), but not this. This fusion group itself is non-notable - search for "Inu-Yupiaq" and you get basically nothing besides some stuff from the university. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Alaska Native storytelling. Public performances of dance groups represent the only opportunity for many people who neither live in nor have visited a village to experience storytelling traditions RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be the only article on Alaska Native dancing in WP, I see room to improve the article, but not to delete it. How about you take my source material and add to the article to build it into something decent? Montanabw ^(talk) 17:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything here worth preserving. The title is the name of one specific college dance group. ("Inu-Yupiaq" is an invented word.) As for sources on that specific group, there are none from outside the college. Tons of non-notable student groups get mentioned in college papers periodically. To the extent the article strays from the topic of "Inu-Yupiaq" and discusses Native song/dance generally, that content is confusing, unsourced (apart from one point about song duels that belongs in Inuit throat singing), and combines a variety of Alaska Native traditions in a way that doesn't make much sense. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that off-campus sources are needed, i.e. third-party (bearing in mind that a university newspaper is a third party to the group, likewise any publication of the university itself), it's not like individual dance groups with individual dance styles don't have a presence on Wikipedia, nor is there any reason to forbid that e.g. La La La Human Steps. And this The content on native dance/singing generally is confusing, unsourced (apart from one point about song duels that belongs in Inuit throat singing), and combines a variety of Alaska Native traditions in a way that doesn't make much sense." doesn't call for deletion, it calls for making sense, if possible, about what is there. "Tons of non-notable student groups get mentioned in college papers periodically" is also not clear and confusing, and prejudges whether they are notable or not; have you looked up any Alaska publications that might mention them, or is this just a IDONTLIKEIT plaint? University newspapers are incestuous, yes, but they are still third-party publications. And who cares if the name is a "portmanteau" (a word overused in wikipedia for an amalgam or combination)? That has zip to do with anything.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLUB for the need for something beyond student papers. I am from Alaska, and any group that is important would be discussed in the Anchorage Daily News, the paper of record for the state. The Fairbanks News-Miner would also cover things of local importance in Fairbanks. Neither paper has ever discussed the group in any detail. (The group has been listed fewer than 10 times in local event listings, with no further detail.) Given that article is titled after a specific dance group, it does not make sense to clean up the general content about Alaska Native dance on this particular page. It would be essentially the same as Wikipedia locating its general article about ballroom dance under the title Crimson Tide Ballroom Dancers (of the University of Alabama, to pick a totally arbitrary example). I make the portmanteau point for people unfamiliar with Alaska Native groups, who might mistakenly think that Inu-Yupiaq is a Native people. (It is not.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See for Alaskan Eskimo songs and dances: Thomas F. Johnston (1976), The Eskimo Songs of Northwestern Alaska. Arctic 29(1):7-19 {The name "Eskimo" in this paper is for Inupiaq} --Kmoksy (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up Tom Johnston, another problem with coverage of the University of Alaska: most existing coverage of "notable faculty" reads like thinly veiled self-promotion of current or recent faculty, in the process missing the boat on reflecting what's really notable. Dr. Johnston was quite an interesting person. Unfortunately, his murder at the hands of his housemate in 1994 probably attracted more attention than anything he accomplished during his life. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle/Rewrite – First off, coverage of the University of Alaska System and that which falls under its umbrella is an unfocused mess in general, ripe for spam and POV forking. Second, this particular group is not that terribly notable. Native dancing as a whole is most certainly notable. Many dance groups are possibly notable in and of themselves, but it's hard to say whether you could get much more than a series of copycat permastubs out of the deal should you choose to go that route. If you're looking for notability in the context of Native dancing at UAF, there is the Festival of Native Arts, held annually in late February/early March for several decades, which regularly attracts dance groups (not to mention crafts vendors) from around the state. From my perspective as a Fairbanks-area resident who is involved with Native people and issues on an almost daily basis, the Barrow and Anaktuvuk Pass groups travel around regularly, groups from the western coast come here for most big events (and presumably travel to Anchorage more often), plus there are a number of Athabaskan dance groups. Athabaskan dances share similar traits with Inupiaq and Yupik dances, but have their own variations; Kaltag Stickdance, anyone? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about unrelated traditional dress and other Native culture topics

Comment: The Eskimo dancers (with qaspeq) in the file (Alaskan dancers.jpg)
Native Alaskan dance troupe at the University of Alaska Museum of the North
are "common" dancers or Inu-Yupiaq dancers? --Kmoksy (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any way to know what dance troupe is depicted in that file without further information. Inu-Yupiaq appears to perform in similar clothing,[15] but so do many other Native dance groups in the state.[16] Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The better known and organized dance groups tend to dress uniformly in performance. For instance, the Barrow group distinguishes itself by virtue of the males wearing crisp white dress shirts during performances. There are people involved with Inu-Yupiaq who are full-time residents of Fairbanks, mostly UAF staffers and former students. However, most students are back home (or working summer jobs) during the majority of the tourist season. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tr:Qaspeq (Yupik) or Atikłuk (Inupiaq) is typical dance cloth of Alaskan Eskimo peoples. --Kmoksy (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the article Kuspuk -- we should have had this article long ago! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This page is "short" but "wonderful" for Alaskan Eskimo culture. --Kmoksy (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: Related page is Pamyua (literally: "it's tail" in Central Alaskan Yup'ik language from pamyuq "tail of animal or kayak; chorus of song; upper stern-piece of kayak") is a Yupik musical group from Anchorage. Also annual Cama-i Dance Festival (my favorite is Chevak Dancers, because are endangered Cup’ik) --Kmoksy (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 30 May 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note — At its core, note that the nomination is for the student group, and the policy and guideline-based rationales presented are effectively that the group has a lack of numerous, substantial, reliable secondary sources for verifying significant coverage as a claim to notability of that group. The dance/art form is incidental to the subject of the article, which, again, is the student group. --slakr^\ talk / 04:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my vote. Generalized coverage of the overlying topics covered in the article is sorely lacking, rendering it at best a POV fork and at worst not entirely subtle advertising/promotion for the student group, with just enough off-topic material thrown in to make it appear legitimate to the untrained eye. I tend to be turned off when I read posts containing a fondness for quoting policy and guidelines not dissimilar to a preacher quoting the Bible. WP:WTF-EVER et. al. isn't going to read Wikipedia content and conclude that it lacks credibility, but real people out in the real world will do exactly that. IF you are insisting that I treat this nomination as though it exists in a vacuum, then and only then will I say Delete. Please feel free to clarify whether that was your intention. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also stand by my keep vote. The article was expanded and sourced; Native People have a harder time putting out material in sources that pass wikipedia muster. Montanabw ^(talk) 15:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Victoria, British Columbia. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair Shopping Centre[edit]

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

NN 409,316 sq. ft. mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources have been added to the article to add to its notability as one of Victoria's first major shopping centres. Creativity-II (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the refs you added do you believe, when taken together, reflect the requisite substantial coverage, that is not ordinary run-of-the-mill stuff that all non-notable malls have?

ref 1 (27-store mall opened, per local paper),

ref 2 (50th anniversary, per local paper),

ref 3 (a 6-word mention, within a parenthetical, within a sentence, as to not the mall--but the mall's location),

ref 4 (a photo??),

ref 5 (50th anniversary, per local paper),

ref 6 (a non-RS "shopinvictoria" ref)

ref 7 (a non-RS "Our Story" ref)

Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't think so, but all of them. Diminishing the additions to the article because you don't think they matter does nothing to diminish the article itself or its notability. Another thing I'd like to know is how you think neither the sixth reference (which backs 1, 2 and 5) nor the seventh (which confirms already well-known historic information) meets reliable sources standards in your view? Creativity-II (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Victoria, British Columbia. While malls of this size are generally not notable enough for stand-alone articles, they do tend (as this one does) to have some local notability - and the sources we already have here, particularly local papers, are quite enough to justify a couple of sentences in the article on the locality. PWilkinson (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Victoria, British Columbia. Coverage appears to be primarily local (e.g. [17]), so this doesn't appear to qualify for a standalone article per WP:AUD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Victoria, British Columbia per PWilkinson and NorthAmerica. Not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Victoria, British Columbia. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tillicum Centre[edit]

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

NN 50+ store, 472,590 sq. ft mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge ~~Delete~~ ~~Fails WP:V. Sourcing is so lacking that the article requires a complete rewrite to satisfy WP:V.~~ I wasn't able to wp:verify the size of the centre. I looked at Google books and news.google.com/newspapers. Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to speedy merge. Northamerica1000 has found a few sources and added them to the article, although not a source to verify the size of the mall. He supports a merge to Victoria, British Columbia, and Epeefleche has initiated the merge, here. So there is no longer an argument for deletion, nor is there any support for a keep. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Victoria, British Columbia. Coverage in reliable sources exists, but it's primarily local (see WP:AUD). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a redirect. But nothing to merge. The text is all uncited and challenged. Any new material could be created and cited properly at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from reliable sources to the article ([18], [19], [20]), which better-qualifies the merge. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're now in the target (where as I pointed out they could have been created in the first place). Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to redirect to an appropriate target, if desired (is it common to redirect a mall to the article about the city in which it resides?). I can restore the article temporarily for the purposes of merging, if requested. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westshore Town Centre[edit]

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

NN 335,000 square ft mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated at [21], there are another 190,000 ancillary sq ft, for a total of 525,000 sq ft. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Langford, British Columbia. Coverage exists, (e.g. [22]), but it's mostly local from what I could find (see WP:AUD). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a redirect. It is already mentioned at the target. But there is almost nothing to merge. The only cited text is the square footage. The rest is all uncited and challenged. Any new material could be created and cited properly at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources to the article to better-qualify the merge. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mall was already mentioned at the target. Before this AfD was started. And the refs (which I would suggest should have been created at the target) are now reflected there. So a redirect seems more appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom has stipulated that the ~~mall~~ centre was already wp:prominent at another topic in the encyclopedia before the nomination, which as per WP:ATD meant that the topic was not eligible for deletion for non-notability at the time of the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you confusing mention of it in another article on a broader subject, with notability necessary to qualify it for a standalone article??? Two wildly different things. Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis The "???" and the word "wildly" show that this is a logical fallacy called an appeal to emotion. The questions literally ask if I am confusing something, so are not really questions to me but are talking past me to a perceived audience, to associate my post with the word "confusion". In addition, there is a core contrast that basicly says that topics that fail WP:N and as per WP:ATD are eligible for merge, should not be confused with topics that pass WP:N. This is both a truism and a strawman. Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [23] states that in addition to the 335,000 sq ft, there are 190,000 "ancillary" sq ft. I have been studying the centre's website, which includes a link to [24], dated September 2013. The size of 335,000 is incomplete because there two smaller shopping centres in the same parking lot, along with a large "Real Canadian Superstore" and a "Canadian Tire" which are two of the largest stores in the complex. I get the following numbers.

Westshore Village, 67237 sqft
Eastgate Centre, 17691 sqft
The Real Canadian Superstore, largest store in the complex, possibly around 90,000 sqft
Canadian Tire, one of the large stores in the complex, possibly around 40,000 sqft

Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Langford, British Columbia per conversation of Epeefleche and NorthAmerica. The Centre is not independently notable. --Bejnar (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to List of shopping malls in Canada. No evidence of notability. The broader question here is why does it matter how many square feet it has? The fundamental policy is WP:GNG, which says nothing about square feet. What it does say (under Wikipedia:NRV#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence), is, The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. If a mall consists of a newspaper stand and a coffee shop, crammed into 500 square feet, but it's getting multiple articles written about it in national newspapers, then it's notable. If it's got a million square feet, 600 stores, and 10 acres of parking lots, but nobody other than the real estate industry rags are writing about it, then it's not notable. It's not our job to pick a number of square feet and declare that above this line, we bestow the mantle of notability. An article in a construction industry magazine talking about how many pieces of sheetrock were used does not establish notabiltiy. An article in a local newspaper talking about traffic congestion does not establish notability. A list of which generic big-box retailer, which generic drug store chain, which generic fast-food restaurant, which generic shoe store, which generic movie theater, and which generic supermarket have leased space does not establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to undeletion or recreation if the movie gets more coverage. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chal Jhoothey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through WP:INDAFD, we have Chal Jhoothey Vishwanath Sharma Shaleen Bhanot Gamya Wijayadasa Kiran Srinivas Madhura Naik Nikhil Ratnaparkhi Ranjeet

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

Delete without prejudice. While this article was certainly premature 3 years ago, it does appear to be getting some minor coverage, but not quite enough to meet WP:NFF (paragaph 3). Allow undeletion or recreation when it gets more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too wee, too poor, too stupid[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements for notability, seems to be campaign slogan, no other supporting links to suggest that this phrase is meaningful beyond a few newpaper articles using the term Solntsa90 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 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 June 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How notable is this meme? Can we get some Scots Wikipedians in the debate? Bearian (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Scots Wikipedian I have to say I had never heard the phrase until it turned up here. --Deskford (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable topic Just because Alex Salmond and a few bloggers have used the term doesn't make for an article. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Philg88 ^♦talk 22:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khadijah Haqq[edit]

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

No significant coverage, famous for being the friend of Kardashian. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG failure for a reality hanger-on with only a spare 'extra' resume of roles outside the Bravo/E! reality complex. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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