Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 June	16 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. G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work record of Bhaktivinoda Thakur[edit]

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

The material in this list may be of use in the article Bhaktivinoda Thakur, but I see no need for a stand alone list. Already proposed for deletion and rejected. SchreiberBike talk 22:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Thakur's main article. Doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:LISTN.—Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly lacks notability. I disagree with Redtigerxyz as I cannot see how this detail is relevant to his article - he is known for being a religious leader, not a judge, etc and even if he was known best as a judge this is far too much detail. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Case can be made for the list's notability by itself, as mentioned in our exchange with Dougweller here. However, including it in the current article on Bhaktivinoda Thakur would work too. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear lack of notability for this part of his life, merging it to the main article does a disservice to that article with a weight problem. All that's really required from this particular list in the main article is a one-two sentence extract about his work life and that needs to be fresh prose, so nothing really salvageable here. —SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that a lack of notability can only then be "clear" when someone making such claims takes the time to study the subject's life in enough detail. All Thakur's biographers have built their accounts of his emerging as the prominent religious leader using his work record as a pivot. However, I agree with the disservice part, with the only exception that the disservice to the subject is the current article itself. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is an uncivil comment and is not going to help you. Cinosaur, if I understand you, your use of the word 'notability' is quite different from the way it is usually used on Wikipedia. See WP:Notability. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comment came across as uncivil. It was meant just to emphasize that notability has to be taken in the context of the available reliable sources – something the current article fails to provide and the editors favoring the article's deletion may not be aware of. Hence the perceived weight problem referred to in SpacemanSpiff's comment and the perceived lack of notability in yours, Dougweller. As I said at my talkpage, "the article in question is actually a list (more precisely, a chronology of events) and as such, falls under Purposes of lists (information) and can be kept per "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability"." Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge, no redirect I agree that moving the whole list is likely to create balance issues, so whoever does the merge needs to keep that in mind. No redirect because "Work record of ..." is not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 13:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Hotel Firebombing[edit]

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

PRODed this as WP:NOTNEWS, tag removed with no coherent reason. Nobody hurt, I do not think this is at all likely to be of lasting significance. TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing that this is going to meet WP:EVENT. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 15 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, Go Phightins! 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--Staberinde (talk) 16:02, 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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian footballers[edit]

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

Needless article - just a list with no context, and not even clear as to who should be included. Already covered by Category:Brazilian footballers and/or Category:Brazil international footballers Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Missed that article had survived previous AfDs with same criteria. Article does, however, need the context addressed before renaming as List of Brazilian national footballers. I think that this is an uncontentious move, and it's odd that it hasn't been done before. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is meant to be a List of players for the Brazilian national football team, but it doesn't say that anywhere. Based on the criteria as stated, any Brazilian footballer could be listed whether or not he or she has played for the national team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tighten the inclusion criteria. The case for the categories existing fails WP:CLN. This is part of a bigger series of Category:Lists of association football players by nationality and the links within {{Association football players}}. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good list that is in no way made redundant by the existence of a category, but clarification of criteria as mentioned above would help. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable and move to List of Brazil international footballers (as that appears to be the scope i.e. players who have played for the Brazilian national team) in line with the other articles at Category:Lists of association football players by national team. GiantSnowman 11:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it targets nationality, part of Category:Lists of association football players by nationality as noted above. And the corresponding category, Category:Brazilian footballers, is likewise a subcategory of Category:Association football players by nationality. We should (and do) have lists of players by both nationality (as is standard for any profession) and by team, so feel free to create one for Brazil international and add it to Category:Lists of association football players by national team. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a valid article/list subject. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. Please don't waste our time in the future with deletion nominations that don't address prior deletion results or relevant guidelines. The whole discussion in the prior AFD was about the complementary function of lists and categories per WP:CLN, on which basis the list was kept by overwhelming consensus. It would be one thing to expressly disagree with that result and give reasons why we should come to a different outcome notwithstanding the very clear guideline language, but you've failed to even show awareness of either the guideline or the content of the prior AFD while raising an argument it rebutted and rejected five years ago. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Didn't spot the template showing previous deletion debates. Thanks for being civil and assuming good faith. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith; I assumed your failure to do your due diligence was not willful obfuscation but was done innocently. And as you admit that you didn't see the prior discussion (despite posting a "3rd nomination", and despite the template displaying quite clearly once the discussion was posted), we don't have a disagreement of fact here that your nomination was made in innocent ignorance of relevant discussion and guidelines. You can now display your good faith by withdrawing your nomination so as to not waste further time on it, if you would not have made it had you been aware of the previous AFD and CLN. Or you can justify it by explaining why there should now be a different result notwithstanding those considerations if you persist in thinking deletion is appropriate even after seeing the counterarguments. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear context, i.e. international players. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 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 01:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope in transition[edit]

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

A prime example of why WP:A7 should apply to unremarkable musical recordings and not just those whose parent articles don't exist. Laun chba ller 21:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. Maybe someday it'll be notable enough for a stand-alone article (like James's other two albums [1] [2]), but it's just too soon. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web searches indicate that it exists, but not that it is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 22 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. The copyvio argument carries a lot of weight, and since the topic is not mentioned in Touhou Project, a redirect is probably not appropriate at this time. Deor (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Miko Reimu[edit]

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

The article is about non notable song. Most of the article is the lyrics (a copyright violation). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A9. Artist link redirects to the game whose soundtrack it is on.Bensci54 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Touhou Project, as it's a part of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Not even mentioned in Touhou Project. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:25, 22 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 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

President John F. Kennedy March[edit]

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

It seems non notable. Google search return 0 hits ([1]). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources are provided, and there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. The article isn't even consistent as to the title of this composition -- is it the "President John F. Kennedy March" or the "John Fitzgerald Kennedy March"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:27, 22 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} 08:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Stylez[edit]

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

plain promo, reverting proved useless. The Banner talk 20:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if criteria is notability. Length, nature and tone of content is promotional and may be hard to fix. I am not a Music project member but subject appears to meet number of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

subject of multiple, non-trivial, published work Star Phoenix, News Optimist
Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style Named one of Top 25 Rappers by CBC Music
Has been nominated for a major award (Juno qualifies)

Canuckle (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is clearly notable, per what Canuckle has said. Content is utter garbage. I tried to remove some of the garbage, but it will take a lot of effort to get it to a good state. In cases like this, we should stubify if needed, before resorting to deletion, or simply living with promotion. --Rob (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The news coverage references in the article and Juno nomination are sufficient to establish notability as a musician. I also found this from the Regina Leader-Post. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 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. To be treated as an uncontested WP:PROD, as nobody has commented on the nomination. Sandstein 11:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a national movement, as far as I can tell it no longer exists, I cannot find a single reference to this specific group, and the article needs alot of work. GiraffeBoy (talk) 20:37, 15 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 01:09, 23 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 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earning A Terrific Video clip Game[edit]

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

This is some kind of "how to" manual for making video games. This is not an encyclopedic article. It is contrary to the WP:NOTHOWTO policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced essay & WP:NOTHOWTO.TheLongTone (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is also poorly written, with sentences such as "No matter whether it be bigger details, for a longer period time surviving, even more development by way of the video game, or a different sort of rating raise, in the long run your only end purpose is to conquer the rating that has been established as greatest rating." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wanted to CSD it earlier but it did not fit into any category. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTHOWTO fully apply.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:08, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Kisses and Final Requests[edit]

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

There is nothing here that meets the standard of notability, no references in the 4 years this article has been here. Jacona (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced article on non-notable recording.TheLongTone (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but I was not able to find a shred of evidence that it is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:26, 22 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 01:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todavia Nos Queremos[edit]

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

Non -notable recording: artist's article also at AfD. Unreferenced & notabilty tags foy over four years. TheLongTone (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing notable here.Jacona (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists. Other than sales sites, web searches reveal that someone once heard one of the songs on their Spotify feed, and one of the songs once got played on a Minnesota college radio station. And that's it. Nowhere near notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:43, 22 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. Consensus is that there are insufficient independent reliable sources.Mojo Hand (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Ghosh (businessman)[edit]

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

Unremarkable businessman TheLongTone (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not notable. The sources are all of a promotional press-release type and he is just a name in a list within them.Jacona (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The page has many references from credible sources, like newspapers and independent websites. Most of the references are not press releases at all rather they are independent press coverage. The subject is notable as there are many old credible links from newspapers if Google search is done. The page should not be deleted, rather a advice can solve the issue. It is a short biography and under start category, it is not advertisement but the page tells about a individual with references. The page must not be deleted. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search throws credible results, can be considered for keep. The references are less but are credible and belongs to the journals and e-newspapers of the financial industry. Premieredit (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)— User:Premieredit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Written more like a promotion. I should point out that Wikicontri1968 is the major contributor of this article which he/she has failed to mention. Not that they are discouraged from contributing but it should be open. Premieredit also has close ties to the subject shown by their edit history. Cowlibob (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment On inspection of the references in this article, all directly or indirectly gain their information from press releases by Exhilway which are of course unreliable as it's not independent. Cowlibob (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Yes, we are the major contributor and I have referred it to all editors via their talk page. I agree the page for Joy Ghosh has lesser references and I have admitted it, but what I believe is whatever information is there is credible. It is not all press releases which is a part of it, since he is one of the contributor in the company he lacks some exclusive information, but is well considering since as the fund manager he is contributing majorly in his arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontri1968 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out keep as user has already made one "vote". Cowlibob (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Has very few coverages which does not show he has individually achieved anything. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quotes in his company's press releases are about all there is. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:30, 22 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. The consensus is quite clear that there aren't sufficient sources available for the subject to pass our notability guidelines —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar (businessman)[edit]

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

Unremarkable businessman, coverage all what might be expected of a man doing the job he does. TheLongTone (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Appears to be a fairly common name and quite a few individuals come up on a search. However, not finding much on the specific subject of the article. On the whole, just a run of the mill businessman, fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Respected Sir, Rahul Kumar has enough references from leading newspapers like Economic Times, Business Standard, Hindu Business Line and Reuters. I am surprised to see that it has been nominated for deletion, though notability was accepted by editor Ascii002 when he nominated the page for speedy deletion, the page survived the speedy deletion and notability was noticed by the editor.

Editor, TheLongTone nominated this page for deletion as subject is a businessman, this is not a valid reason when notable references are there. The editor Ascii002 had same issues and we added 5 links for credible sources i.e. from the leading newspapers and the links was fairly 2-3 years old. The links are not from press releases or any promotional type, but it is a third party independent coverage and a fairly old one, which proves subject as notable.

This page must not be deleted as I invested hours and hours to write it in a straight manner, it does not look like advertisement and The Editor, TheLongTone who referred this page for deletion has admitted it. There are no major notability issues at all. This will be unfair to delete this page when there are credible references in place. The subject is clearly categorized into businessman category only for the reason that it is clearly identifiable, having a common name is not a criteria for delete on Wikipedia, it will be unfair to delete this page.

This is a short biography which can be regarded under start category, the article has references from Economic Times, Business Standard and Reuters and all are third party written. i.e. covered by journalists. This must not be deleted, rather editors like you must be helping people like us who are contributing. I have tried my level best to comply with all norms, even references are visible. Please do not delete.

Another important thing, the subject was even part of the Facebook-WhatsApp deal, he valued WhatsApp, a mega deal which happened for US$ 19 billion. There are references given about the same which makes subject notable, as I have mentioned notability is not at all a issue. The keyword on Google search like rahul exhilway it results in 5760 pages which I think is fairly notable. I again request to keep this page and we will try to better it further. It is falling under all major guidelines of Wikipedia and must be retained. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has references from top newspapers. The references are also around 2 years old and Google search with keywords like rahul exhilway fetched around 4000 results on Google search which are quite old and shows notability. The article must be retained. Premieredit (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)— User:Premieredit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Non-notable. PR Newswire is not a reliable source as anyone can submit a press release to them so Whatsapp claim is unsourced. Anyway according to this source, [2] Facebook was advised by Allen & Co. not Exhilway on the deal so don't see why it should be attributed to this individual. Google searches are not a measure of notability. Potential COI issue present as main contributor, Wikicontri1968 seems to be close to the subject. Cowlibob (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ The references from 1,2,3,4 are from newspapers like Economic Times, Business Standard and Reuters portal written by journalists. I am upset seeing that the editors are here are not seeing all references rather trying to prove their respective point right. Sir there's only one reference in this article which is PR, rest all 6 are from newspapers self written by the journalists. Please refer again, especially 1&2 which are over 2 years old and are from newspapers itself. This is really tiring to prove one point again and again, even though strong references are provided.

I do not understand why editors are not doing Google Search, if deleting is the only idea then why we should argue, go ahead and delete it. But you talk practical, Facebook WhatsApp deal itself has over 2000 results for Rahul, when he valued WhatsApp. If you search for Rahul Exhilway, the are close to 5000 results, well written by journalists. The problem at Wikipedia is that one editor accepts that article is notable and other editor puts the article into trouble for no reason. The editors who are now reviewing it are trying to prove themselves right without seeing the references in full. Only one link is PR, and all other are credible, why don't you just search on Google and confirm identity? Please I request you not to only do editing wars but something logical for understanding of the contributor. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a google search before I nominated the article(s) and it was clear that all coverage of this man related to what he did for Exhilway. The business gets coverage & is notable: Kumar only gets mentioned as somebody who works for the company. There is aonly a single exception to this, and it's really too slight to establish his notability independant of Exhilway. TheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ Dear (talk, the references 1,2,3,4,5 clearly states the contribution. This is not right that you want to establish some other image of a person independent of the company he works for. Bill Gates has image due to Microsoft, whatever he did was for Microsoft why do we have his article? The contribution of business people must be seen in conjunction with the company they work for. Sir, this will be unfair if this article is deleted, references are strong, Google Search confirms facts, but the only issue you have is that the subject is working for the company rather than for himself. Not a very strong reason for deletion, as company and individuals have different targets, company may sell 1000 products but there are always few people who sell top 20 products out of 1000 for sale with utmost professionalism and takes company to the top. When a company achieves something, people working for them also achieve something which is called Name, and I am trying to make a point here that working for a company a individual has created a name for himself, which is worth considering on Wikipedia. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~If I wasn't a wide-eyed innocent I'd suspect sockpuppetry.~~TheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)..strikeout comment & duplicate 'vote'TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not since my system had some issues and I was logged out. I have signed the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontri1968 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted as per Cowlibob Allen & Co. was advisor to the Facebook - WhatsApp deal and not Exhilway, Dear Cowlibob I have said that Exhilway contributed to valuation and for WhatsApp, you are refering to a article which was published in February, 2014 and I am referring to the article in November, 2013 when WhatsApp got its valuation done from Exhilway, the article which I referred to existed 3 months prior this deal was even announced, this is what I feel is really notable as Kumar was part of the deal when nobody on earth was even aware about it. Allen & Co. represented Facebook as they were buyers. Please do not fix different facts together to create a wrong impression. I will be obliged. I respect you all for your contributions and support to Wikipedia, but right things should be considered as right only. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one 'vote', so am strikig through the duplicates.TheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicontri please sign your contribution above or we won't know who to attribute the comment to. To the IP address above, please log in unless you claim to be different individual from Wikicontri and Premier above so that everyone is clear who said what. Oh I see, you meant that Whatsapp asked Exhilway to value in November 2013 but still needs reliable source which links this individual and company to the claimed valuation. Cowlibob (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few notable links [3] [4], this article opposed to Exhilway valuation and was written by a independent journalist. You can also refer to this link [5].

All of the above sources cite the PR Newswire press release created by Exhilway so none are reliable. Cowlibob (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first one belongs to privateequity.com, no where on the article it is written it is press release. It is an indepedent source and a journal for private equity investments. The second one is from a article written by a Netherland based journalist, please see the name on the top, it is only the 3rd and the last link which is a PR issued when the valuation was completed. The first two are enough notable and the last reference or the PR is only referred to you so that you can relate the subject with the Facebook-WhatsApp deal event. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Private equity.com sourced Broadway World when you click through it goes direct to the press release [6]. The other two links the webereld link has are unrelated to Exhilway. The third link which is source for the 11 billion number goes to the press release again [7]. Digital journal link is again just the press release. Cowlibob (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! When a journalist is writing about a subject, he may refer to PR and this is the source from where they get information. The link which you are referring as webereld refers entirely to Exhilway where they was accused for valuing a company more than its assets. Please use Google Translate. Now, the final attempt from my side. I am now quoting links from Economic Times and Business Standard, which are atleast not press release and neither are linked to any.

[8] [9] [10]

All the three links are fairly old, and proves notability, all are from leading newspapers written by individual journalists. I have seen articles where one single coverage is regarded enough for notability I do not know why in this case it is only becoming editing war. In the articles mentioned above, you can find direct reference to the subject and sometimes individually quoted. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are wasting your energy. I remain unmoved by your arguments: for my part, I see that it is futile to attempt to explain why I believe this individual is not noteworthy.TheLongTone (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is all about proving what's right and has references. Please remember a liar cannot write 10,000 words of argument, I still believe all references are there. Without commenting on the last set of links clearly given from the newspapers, you are advising me to quit. Putting my point here is not a sin, I have references and if you have made up your mind not to clear this thing, I know I can't do anything. But this is a classic example of taking eye from the well proved points, to sooth the egos. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar is not mentioned in these three sources at all, but if we assume that "Rahul Mahotra" and "Rahul" (no last name given) are the same person as the subject of this article, there is still not significant independent coverage of the person as opposed to the company. --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my comment above. --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malhotra is his last name which is not a compulsion to use in India, now we can't have religious discussions here, you can refer to Google Images and check if he is the same guy or not. By independent coverage, I do not know what you intend to say, being related to the company is not a issue at Wikipedia. The notability is there, the mention of the subject with his pie of interview is there. This is not at all a genuine reason. Please let me know how can I take this matter further with Wikipedia. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. As I said, I assumed that it was the same person. That does not change the argument, however. Please take a minute to read the policies that people link to, for instance where I said "significant independent coverage" above. Nobody is doubting the fact that the links are genuine, but several experienced editors are pointing out the unfortunate fact that these links do not show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have contributed to [11] previously and I can confirm the Rahul and Rahul Kumar are same person. This is as per my own independent research. The links quoted in favor of Kumar are true and correct and he makes to many seminars and media coverage in India and is a well known figure. Notability should not form any problem here. Approve. Rnnindia (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)— User:Rnnindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just to note, information based on original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Also, these discussions are done by the strength of arguments not by the number of people favouring so flooding the discussion with supporters is a fruitless endeavour. Cowlibob (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point but this discussion has reached a stage where the editors need a individual presence of a individual who is known due to his company only. Logically this is wrong as every businessman is related to his company or group and relies on its success for his fame. The 3 major articles, noteworthy has been referred but editors constant denial is resulting in suspicion that are they deleting article due to less references or long drawn argument. Ideally this should be approved however [12] should be deleted in absence of enough links, however Kumar has many to its credit and independent ofcourse. Please think again as such activities shatters faith of contributors. Rnnindia (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have pointed out, the sources you have mentioned may help show notability of the company but not of the individual who does not seem to have had significant coverage apart from small comments in articles written about the company. Helpful sources in that regard would be ones where he is the focus of the article. Cowlibob (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, the subject is covered and is notable with respect to the media channels he is covered in, all are newspapers. When the subject is employee with the company, this is very obvious that he will majorly covered with the company only, every company has its own way of presenting its senior staff. We have to apply some logic and agree that Bill Gates is nobody without Microsoft and so is Warren Buffett without Berkshire. The subject may not be a focus but is a part of senior management, as company is not a living individual, it relies on its people for growth, then in that case covering the subject where in the articles he is majorly considered and acknowledged and is holding a senior postion must be regarded, and the page should be kept. Rnnindia (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kumar has some notable coverages, however the same is linked to Exhilway but it does not mean that he is not notable. This is worth keeping. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is okay to earn fame by working for the organization. The article should be watched for now. Kumar is notable. Ascii0054 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The preceding two posts are by suspect-looking new accounts whose only edits are in AfD discussions.TheLongTone (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which two posts? Participating in AfD is a issue? What is so suspicious? I only commented after going through references. This is not a closed discussion where you are only allowed to comment. You are taking too personal. Ascii0054 (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Delete ~~Subject seems to meet notability requirements (barely), but the article needs much work going forward.~~See below for reasoning. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible for someone to investigate the caucusing going on here? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

This is what I tried to said. I have only tried to put my point that subject has some notability and should be watched for now instead of a delete. My comments resulted in suspicion that I am favoring the subject. I am newly introduced to Wikipedia and what is the issue with contributing in AfD? Suspicion is not a standard of Wikipedia. Ascii0054 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply that most new editors begin by working on articles rather than participating in AfD discussions, added to the fact that several new accounts have seemingly been created to weigh in in this discussion.TheLongTone (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mere assumption. I have joined recently and you must allow time to start working on the articles. This seems to be a dictatorship where few editors are deciding on what new member has to do. My contribution to AfD is not limited to this article only, I favored what seems to be logical. If I have voted in favor of Delete it was then pretty okay since it was in lines with what (User:TheLongTone) has decided. Ascii0054 (User talk:Ascii0054) 11:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LongTone is just being perhaps unduly wary as new users have been known to be created just to "votestack" one side. Just to warn you that AfDs can be a controversial and difficult place at the best of times, especially for new users. You are however perfectly welcome to contribute to this discussion. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand you have concerns but whatever I was saying many editors are saying the same. I provided my view which seems to be logical. Ascii0054 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my view on this, looking at several of the sources, seems this guy is a run of the mill employee of said company and doesn't warrant his own article per the multitude of editors above. Subject fails WP:BIO, therefor delete. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doing a bit of research the contributions for Ascii0054 started the day this AFD was created, same with several other contributors to the discussion. Pardon me for being forward, I see a duck. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I signed up on 18th June, 2014, and this page was nominated for discussion in AfD on 14th June, 2014. I discussed several pages in AfD and this was only one of them, surprised that new users have to now prove their integrity. Why it is being seen with so much suspicion when you yourself believe that subject has notability enough for Wikipedia, but needs further editing? I am surprised. Secondly, we must ask people to upload ID proofs which will make sorting easier!! And finally when this page was nominated for AfD the only reason (User:TheLongTone has given was that subject has a common name and subject has notablity with respect to his company Exhilway, no where it was said he does not have notability. My view was that notability with Exhilway should be considered as all successful entrepreneurs are seen together with their respective companies.Ascii0054 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep up with the discussion. Solarra has changed her mind and has wrote above why. The original nomination's crux was exactly that this individual lacked notability and had no substantial independent press coverage. Only Safiel wrote about it being a common name. Cowlibob (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a nexus among editors which is bigger than duck! The editors are once supporting the article and then suddenly changing their mind, due to private messages being exchanged by few editors to safeguard their egos. This is the 3rd instance where a editor changed its mind. This is a clear nexus and an attempt to keep their decision at the top. Something smells fishy here! Wikicontri1968 (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a chance to read the policies outlined in a previous response to you, yet? Those policies, and not editors' egos, are the basis for this discussion - why would anybody's ego be invested in the removal of an article about a businessman? The only person who has changed their opinion stated clearly which policy their changed recommendation is based on. Also remember that this is not a majority vote. The administrator who closes the discussion will look at the arguments that are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and judge what the consensus is. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no substantial coverage of this subject in any independent RS. Such coverage as there is seems mainly to be stray quotes from his company's press releases/advertorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references 1,2 and 3 are from leading newspapers, please check before you nominate. If an individual is working for a large group he will be covered with the company only. If you notice in all articles he has its independent quote with no other team member involved which proves independent coverage. There are only 2 PR out of 7 references all rest are independent coverage. I hope I sound clear. On this page I can work further, this must not be deleted. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 2 include a quote only, not substantial coverage of this subject. 3 is certainly not a reliable source and could well be advertorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you see that quotes are independent, this shows that subject is directly related to the project Exhilway has assigned him to do. He is not a labour but a head of global operations. The article must be kept as I am still working on it. Wikicontri1968 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like talking to a brick wall. There is no signivicant coverage of the man apart from his activities for the company he works for, so he does not merit an independant article. End of story.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 23 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) 20:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Ruby[edit]

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

No reference except for one from a local paper, no works of note. This is a short article littered with red links and hearsay but totally lacking in the area of reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's assessment is correct. We need more than one short article in a local newspaper to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely not notable, should have been CsDd at birth. As should article on his album, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todavia Nos Queremos.TheLongTone (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed fails GNG/BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:38, 15 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, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails BIO & GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even close to being notable, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:57, 22 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cruise ships with similar names[edit]

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

Unreferenced list with vague criteria for inclusion. There's no evidence that this topic has been discussed in reliable sources. Many of the inclusions are dubious at best (are Norwegian Sea and Sea Princess really likely to be confused?). Pburka (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first I thought it was a mis-titled disambig page, but it's really a pointless list with a dubious inclusion criteria. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per standalone list notability - there is no reliable source coverage of the topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references which would put this in the category of original research.Jacona (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, TRIVIA, fails GNG, and everything else. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced personal essay masking as a list of trivia. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 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 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veron (software)[edit]

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

Largely promotional (see: dominating "list of features" section) and fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The external links used as references are all download sites and do not meet RS guidelines. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources used do not appear to be reliable. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:10, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Digital Reach[edit]

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

Article about a digital advertising model. I am unable to find a single source to even establish that such a thing exists, let alone is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, seems a bit obvious (sums to "put ads on popular pages") Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 16:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With absolutely no sources apparently available it could probably be speedied as made up. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising. Nickmalik (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom - I searched and failed to find any mention of it anywhere, even a trivial mention on a non-reliable source. Agyle (talk) 07:07, 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 redirect both to David Watkin (cinematographer)#Publications. Deor (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is There Only One Word for Thesaurus?[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiographies of a notable subject.

I'd suggest a merge to the subject's topic, but the the articles for these titles have been long-tagged for notability and lack of references. A merge would mean moving that unreferenced material to another article, which doesn't really improve the corpus. Mikeblas

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

(talk) 15:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support both being up-merged to the author pages (to at least being mentioned, and briefly sumarrized). Otherwise though, clearly deletable, Sadads (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both. There's minimal content that could be merged; the latter book's article is purely PR blurb, the former has little information although the list of illustrators might be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect both (or merge) to David Watkin (cinematographer). It is an unusualy biogrpahy that needs a separate article from its subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 22 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. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Bieber[edit]

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

Non notable relative of notable person Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTINHERITED, would attract no coverage if he was not Justin's father.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the father of someone famous doesn't imply any notability on its own. 2Flows (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Cowlibob (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's something funny about making the "not inherited" point in this case. Regardless, it's also an unsourced BLP that makes no other claim to notability. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons pointed out above!, Being a father to someone doesn't mean you're notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may I ask why this article was not proposed for deletion in accordance with WP: BLP PROD? DJAMP4444 18:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because some idiot would slap in a source, and it would still have to be taken to Afd.TheLongTone (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedydelete... Why is this here?--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:30, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Table Primera B Nacional[edit]

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

This new page only contains an all-time table already included on Primera B Nacional article, therefore I consider that creating a new article in this case is absolutely unnecessary. Fma12 (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and WP:OR. Giant Snowman 11:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS and the fact that this is an unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 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 Merge to insomnia. Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kern[edit]

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

This case of prolonged insomnia has initially been reported by the Austrian Press Agency in 1930 and reporting was apparently revived in 1938. Putting aside certain contradictions in the reporting (I checked an article in the Times of 18 January 1938, which claimed that Kern had suffered injury by the splinter of a grenade), this case was apparently neither scientifically documented at the time nor has it been mentioned in newer secondary literature on the subject of insomnia or the like. Thus the information cannot be attributed to or verified by reliable sources. The media coverage of the case appears all in all to have been only marginal. The Times article I mentioned has meagre 278 words. Other newspapers reprinted the cable by APA and discussed it briefly. To my mind Dale Carnegie mentioning Kern in one of his books and Indie folk-pop band The Dimes, who dedicated a song to him, have contributed most strongly to the memory of Kern, but not significantly enough that Kern should be included in Wikipedia. Assayer (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to insomnia. Worth a couple sentences there, and the references carry -- but that's it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems fair, though it pains me because this is the sort of article Wikipedia is so often good for. Nonetheless, I searched for sources too and couldn't produce more than what's already given. I'm seeing it mentioned in several places (National Geographic website for example) but everything appears to come back to these couple older pieces (or otherwise sourced to Wikipedia). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the primary topic of the coverage, and it's sufficiently significant to pass WP:GNG. That it was not scientifically verified is not important - the newspapers are sufficiently reliable. That there is little recent coverage is also unimportant, as notability is not temporary. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biographical article, so WP:BIO applies, and I do not see that Paul Kern meets any of the criteria listed. What is more, the information is scrappy and some basics are contradictory. We do not know, when he was born or when he died. Some sources claim he was shot through the head, others say, he was wounded by a shellburst. [13] That's not enough for a standalone article and does not pass WP:GNG, because original research would be necessary to unearth basic biographical information. Neither do I see enough media coverage to have an article about that coverage. The newspaper reports of 1930 can be traced to an APA cable so that these articles only count as one source. Just because something has been printed in a newspaper as strange news, does not mean that the content is reliable. At least the Adelaide Register in 1930 remained more skeptical than the WP article quoting the medical superintendent of the Adelaide Hospital: "Frankly, I do not believe the report."--Assayer (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with merge as above. The case is interesting, and the amount of coverage provided would normally be enough for GNG. But this is a medical case, so MEDRS should apply, and there is no reliable sourcing from a medical standpoint. Google Scholar found only a popular book, nothing meeting MEDRS. There is plenty of reporting on this case - more is available in addition to what is in the article. But we don't know how much of this reporting is true and how much of it is gullible repetition of a "Believe it or not!" type story (which is how a lot of it reads). --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's sufficiently notable for WP:GNG it should be kept, regardless of WP:MEDRS. The specific notability criteria are intended to broaden inclusivity, not narrow it. Pburka (talk) 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 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The operating system of the brain[edit]

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

Bringing back to AfD to be discussed. (It was speedied as a copyvio before the discussion got going last time.) There is a claim that the text is or is being licensed CC-BY-SA, so the copyright status is perhaps less relevant to the discussion than the contents. This looks to me like pure original research WP:OR, and it is sourced to the author's website. Totally non-encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear violation of WP:OR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horribly written OR essay about a subject for which an article already exists, cognitive psychology.TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr LongTOne,do you really know if the cognitive psychology link you have given covers the matter in this article? Please do not comment quickly with over enthusiasm. This article i added here is a newly published content in an per reviewed journal. i had given link to the journal page in references section of article--kvraghavaiah (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- essay filled with original research. --Passengerpigeon (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~No Deletion, Keep it~~. It looks much different now. It is neither a copyright violation nor a direct copy of the full text from source --kvraghavaiah (talk) 1:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright/copying or how it looks is not the problem. The problem is that it is your own original intellectual work, and encyclopedias do not carry original work - please do read WP:OR. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Ugly WP:OR.--cyclopia ^speak! 08:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ link to the peer reviewed journal where the content is published is given in the article references section. I am surprised why so many people are overlooking the article and recommending deletion when they do not have patience to verify the article content, copyright and references given clearly--kvraghavaiah ^speak! 10:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can Comment as many times as you like, but only one keep or delete is allowed per account. The closing admin (not one who has expressed an opinion here) goes by the arguments rather than the numbers. The keep or delete is to show your position. Everything else is comment. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still missing the point. Wikipedia does not host versions of original work, not even with a reference to where it was first published. For a work to be notable, we'd need multiple independent sources talking about it, not just a link to the work itself - and if we had those, we could perhaps have an article talking about the work, but still not a reworded version of the work itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I gave reference to the peer reviewed journal page (in the references section) where my research work is published. I think, such data from independent sources can be published in Wikipedia. The content is published in the journal with title 'happiness and sadness' (The same concept and content as in this article).I will see if I can upload a copy of the pdf i received from the journal publishers as proof, because the article access directly from the publisher's website needs payed membership --kvraghavaiah (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody is disputing that you had the work published, and an uploaded pdf won't make any difference. You are either not listening to or not understanding what people are actually saying. Wikipedia does not publish original work, and does not republish works that have been published elsewhere - it writes about such works from a third-party perspective (like "In his work XXX, YYY said so-and-so..." or "Theory XXX said that..." etc), but only when there are independent sources offering significant coverage of the work. As an example, look at Theory of relativity. Does it republish Einstein's actual papers on the subject? No. Does it write about his theories from a third-party perspective? Yes. Does it rely on multiple independent sources which write about his work? Yes. If you want to have any mention of your work in Wikipedia, you need to find those multiple independent sources which write about it in order to demonstrate its notability - and even then, it would not be presented in the way you have done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your own publication of your paper is not an independent source. An independent source is one written by someone else, with no connection to you or your publishers. It is also doubtful that it is a reliable source, as the publisher looks to me very much like a vanity publisher. I see no evidence that it is a respectable peer-reviewed source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is a POV-essay resembling a blog-post, not a truly encyclopedia article. Also, technically this is redundant content, subject already covered in a scientific & encyclopedic manner at Human brain and Brain. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a personal essay promoting its author's personal opinions. There is no evidence whatever that the concepts described are notable, or that they have received any coverage whatsoever by anyone except its author. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:SNOW. Nobody who edits Wikipedia regularly could read this and not see original research. The problem is not that individual sentences can't be verified, it's that this is clearly not an encyclopedia article, it's some sort of essay or weblog entry. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. Fringe original research. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:18, 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 Keep. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Tribe[edit]

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

I deleted this as a PROD - suddenly it reappeared complete with outdated PROD banner - someone has recreated it from a cached copy. No point fixing PROD date if it going to be repeatedly recreated. Reason for PROD was "Non notable neologism, fails WP:GNG." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that any change has occurred that would make this term notable. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree article in present shape is substandard but there are numerous sources suggesting this is a valid term, of interest in the media, past neologism stage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the topic is encyclopedic and important, particularly as the younger generation becomes more prominent; there will be marketing ramifications, new technologies (adapted for the use of the thumb, not the forefinger), major societal implications (eg how will it affect interpersonal relationships? positively or negatively? etc). Even anthropologists are making use of the term as well as advertisers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be in wide use as noted by multiple reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and current sources, WP:HEY applies. Cavarrone 20:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and WP:HEY. Well done. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:40, 23 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 01:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mendel[edit]

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

Non-notable actor autobiography. I'm not seeing any in depth coverage in independent third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Nothing better in google either. I'm not a TV fan nor a Canadian, so maybe there are specialist sources out there that I'm not seeing? Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI as the major contributor is the subject of the article so is AUTOBIO. Written like an advertisement. No notable press coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Cowlibob - Clearly coi bs that serves no purpose here!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's potential for a proper article, given his lengthy role on Night Heat, but I can't find any source that does more than say he appeared in it, and generally we don't give articles to everyone who appears in a hit show, no matter the role. After this is deleted it might make sense to redirect to Stephen Mandel, as a misspelling. --Rob (talk) 07:30, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zargarian Synagogue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a nice place. 7dorim.com seems to have reliable editorial staff focused on documenting the history and presence of Jews in Iran. Weak keep, I would say. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Vejvančický. The article is sourced and (now) Wikified, and I've added AD equivalents for the SH dates. Unician ∇ 12:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Aside from the Arabic source, I don't see any third-party refs online or in Google books for the synagogue or the founder. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't Arabic, it's Persian. Zero^talk 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection to an article on this subject. A synagogue for 500 people is notable enough in my estimation. However, I'm concerned about the sourcing. The only source given seems to be some sort of religious web site. Conformity to WP:RS is currently arguable. Zero^talk 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and revisit in six months) if only for the fact that this article was created a mere two days ago (June 14, 2014) [14] and how on Earth does the nominator know that this is not notable? (unless the nominator knows something that we don't know that is a reason to shoot down this article within a day or two of its creation) and how could anyone possibly demand "instant sources"? when it's about an ancient Persian synagogue that for all we know is more notable than hundreds of other synagogue article that have been around on WP and are still taking time to improve. Obviously the creator of the article was not engaged and was not seriously contacted and this was not discussed anywhere in any real way either at the article's or anyone's talk page or at WP:TALKJUDAISM. This is where WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE should be read and re-read. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Vejvančický and IZAK. Especially since this is an underserved topic area on Wikipedia, I see no reason to come in with a bulldozer on a promising, sourced article after only two days. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 21:50, 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 and redirect to Southern Education and Library Board. Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derryhale Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school that provides education for children ages 3-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern Education and Library Board per well-established consensus. This school has 60 students and is of no historical or architectural significance that I can see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school which should be retained per our editing policy and customary practise which is not to delete such content. Andrew (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a notable school. WP:ITSNOTABLE. WP:PRESERVE says nothing about not deleting primary schools. It is customary practice to either delete or redirect schools, so recycling the same argument doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew -- you !voted Keep. And then in explaining your !vote, refer to "customary practise." Are you asserting that it is customary at AfD to Keep primary schools? If so, what is your basis for that assertion? Everyone at these AfDs who has commented seems to think you are stating an untruth in this regard. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone !voting delete here and so we're obviously not going to delete this content. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Please see our deletion policy. Andrew (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew is just recycling the same old WP:PRESERVE argument that no one has agreed with. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards - the nominator is proposing that the article be deleted and no-one is agreeing with him. Andrew (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just voted delete, No one has voted keep in this AfD or any other recent primary school AfD. you need to realise this. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with redirect as an alternative. I do disagree with your Keep !vote, however, and your assertion in explaining your !vote, where you refer to "customary practise." Are you asserting that it is customary at AfD to Keep primary schools? Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to County Armagh per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Not much info on Derryhale so feel redirecting to County Armagh is a better option. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. I oppose merge as there is no useful content to merge. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to County Armagh per long and well-established consensus as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 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 05:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Hart[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Was deprodded by an IP who prob doesn't realise that PORNBIO no longer includes nominations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't won any major awards. Not otherwise notable by Wikipedia standards, despite her long career in adult films. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet PORNBIO criteria. Cowlibob (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. No in-depth citations in the article. Searching yielded a passing mention in an AP article and an AVN report that Hart was carjacked. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominators analysis. Finnegas (talk) 07:58, 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 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Boyack[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article set up by COI editor. SPS sources only. No indication of impact as a think tank president. Organization (Libertas Institute) itself has been nominated for deletion as well. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 15:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as OP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Non-notable, clear COI. Cowlibob (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sourcing. RomanSpa (talk) 08:56, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Very small budget. No secondary sources support article, much less show impact as a think tank. Article set up by COI editor, apparently the president of Libertas, whose own article (Connor Boyack) has been nominated for deletion as well. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per OP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Clear COI issue. Cowlibob (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a vanity article, and references are inadequate. RomanSpa (talk) 08:57, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Literati Quarterly[edit]

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

New article on a non-notable new publication. No references other than the magazine's web site. Prod-nn tag removed by article creator without comment or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 02:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unambiguously fails WP:NMAG. Not notable enough for wiki. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just created, no way this can be notable yet. Article creation vastly premature. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This new venture does not appear to be the same one as the Literati Quarterly published from 2011 onwards: [15]. AllyD (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Laghari[edit]

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

(Auto)biography of a young university student. Most claims are accompanied by general sources that do not specifically name the subject. The article fails WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography of a research student, featuring some attainments that are far from being of encyclopaedic note (best organiser of a quiz). I am not seeing non-primary evidence that his research has been independently noted to the required level; fails WP:NACADEMICS. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too early. Non-notable. Cowlibob (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirelf fails WP:ACADEMIC.TheLongTone (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. It would take a highly unusual accomplishment by a graduate student to pass WP:PROF and nothing in here appears to rise to that level. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. This seems to be the same individual for which an article was deleted a few months ago and for which another article was already removed. The article names keep changing slightly – this has the (perhaps intentional) side-effect of making it more difficult to connect each version to its past. The creator of this article is a SPA and the other articles had similar trouble, with an eventual sock ring uncovered. This is proving to be an ongoing nuisance. Agricola44 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Of course WP:ACADEMIC fails. $AHLM13$ talk 11:39, 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 keep. I can see how WP:NOTESAL and WP:LSC indeed apply, my mistake for not considering them when actually creating the nomination. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked across the United States[edit]

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

Disclaimer: I removed nearly the entire list recently due to various concerns.

I believe this list has a variety of problems, aside from being a magnet for autobiographic and promotional editing:

People added to the list usually walk across the United States, feature in one or two news reports and are never heard of again afterwards. Adding them to the list amounts to covering the news in my opinion.
If we would only list notable people (People who have lasting notability / people who have their own article) the list itself would be structurally incomplete and thus of limited encyclopedic value.

I don't see a way to ensure this list is both comprehensive and encyclopedic - either we cover every news report in this list, or we artificially limit it to a select few people which renders it incomplete. I would suggest migrating the lists content to the individual biographies where applicable, or creating a category to add to these article's. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 00:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: one of the common reasons for lists is that they allow for entries which are not notable enough for their own page. Also, per AFD articles that can be fixed through normal editing are not candidates for AfD, even if the normal editing must be done frequently and tediously in order to maintain the article. However, per WP:NOTESAL:

editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

I believe if you went ahead and did that then the article would be manageable.AioftheStorm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic per the references and further reading list. As WP:NOTESAL says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." It is then down to editorial discretion to determine what is included in the list and that is a not a matter for AfD. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This passes WP:LISTN as a topic that has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples:

"Walking across America: The people who do it, at a glance". The Oregonian.
"Walking America, for a cause, or not". MSN News.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 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 redirect to Young Money Entertainment. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flow (rapper)[edit]

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

Article about a rapper who is apparently somewhat ONEEVENT notable for having been arrested for attempted murder. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 00:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Coverage found is only about the arrest (which should be omitted per WP:BLPCRIME), not his music, thereby fails WP:MUSICBIO. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Philg88 - Non notable rapper with no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Money Entertainment. The subject currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, but is a likely search term so a redirect to his record label is proper.STATic message me! 23:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Money Entertainment as he is definitely a plausible search term, though doesn't yet have much independent notability. No prejudice against future recreation once he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 02:33, 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.